/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241017.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 17, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 209
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Drinking Water Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Ruley Says
ABM GENERAL: Garcia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
AIR PRODUCTS: Class Cert Filing Extended to Dec. 6
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Peak Bio
APPLE COMMUTER: Has Until Oct. 21 to File Class Cert Opposition
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, CO: Court Rejects Social Worker Class Action Suit
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to March 24, 2025
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
BANK OF THE WEST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Manzo Due March 20, 2025
BH KEYZAR: Faces Hedge Suit Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
BROTHER'S MEN'S: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
C&H SUGAR: Lafrades Sues Over Sugar Refinery Staff's Unpaid Wages
CALIFORNIA: Compels Teachers to Associate With UTLA, Krieger Says
CANLIS: Settles Deferred Wage Class Action for $1.45 Million
CBIZ INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Marcum LLP
CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Deadline
CHARLEY LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Says
CHARLOTTE, NC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Durham
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Olea Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
CINCINNATI LUBES: Bid to Facilitate Notice of FLSA Collective Nixed
CKS PACKAGING: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Fares Says
COMING SOON: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CONTAINER STORE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
CORA TEXAS: Jimenez-Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
DANNER'S INC: Haynes Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages
DCI DONOR: Settlement Deal in Wells Suit Gets Initial Nod
DICK'S SPORTING: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
DOLLARAMA INC: Reaches $2.6-Mil. Settlement in Eco Fees Class Suit
EDEN BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hedges Suit Says
EQUIFAX INFO: Bid to Seal Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd
ERSG US: Finney Seeks to Recover Technician's OT Wages Under FLSA
EXPERIAN INFO: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Pennings Suit
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
FRED PERRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Says
GIOVANNI PERONE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 11, 2025
GLOCK INC: Bid to Seal Class Certification Order Granted in Part
GRACE HOLMES: Madriz-Rivas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
GREEN SUN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Robles Suit Alleges
HEAT TRANSFER: Valencia Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
IC SYSTEM: Lezark Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply
JEREMY BEAN: Kennison Suit Seeks to Certify Class
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Garland Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Consumer Suit Moved to D.N.J.
KELLANOVA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mars Inc.
KIK INTERNATIONAL: Forte Files Suit Over Georgia Plant Fire
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Baby Wipes Contain PFAS, Class Suit Claims
LANCASTER GENERAL: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Dec. 10
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Court Tosses Amended Securities Class Action
LOS ANGELES, CA: Griffin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
MAXIMUS HUMAN: Andrisani Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
MCCARTER & ENGLISH: Class Settlement in Karnas Gets Initial Nod
MDL 3127: 22 Data Security Breach Suits Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
MDL 3128: Five Suits Transferred to D. Minn.
META PLATFORMS: Infringes Copyrighted Work, Farnsworth Says
MNG MISSOURI: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Robles Suit Says
NATIONAL RIFLE: Riddick Seeks to Stop Sex-Based Pricing Promotion
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judgment on Pleadings Denied in Salom Suit
OXFORD HEALTH: Unredacted Class Cert Bid Remains Under Seal
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Suit Stayed Pending Settlement OK
PLANET BIOGAS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Skinner
PRENTKE ROMICH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Jackson Says
RECURSION PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Merger With Exscientia PLC
RED LAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
RED TOOLBOX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Toys' High Lead Content
ROBLOX CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Gower Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SAZ BUSINESS: Coxolca Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
SECOND NATURE: Bid to Junk Best Prior Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot
SECURITY BENEFIT: Bid for Schedule Extensions Tossed w/o Prejudice
SEE TICKETS: Starts Payment Notification for Class Suit Settlement
SHOPTIQUES INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Says
STEP2 COMPANY: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA, Overby Says
STERLING METS: Violates Biometric Privacy Law, Dowling Says
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bid to Transfer Bernard Class Suit Terminated
SYNCHRONY BANK: Parties Must Submit Amended Joint Initial Report
TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Fact Discovery in Jackson Due Sept. 26, 2025
THANG BOTANICALS: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Product Labeling
THRYV INC: Jackson Class Suit Removed to N.D. W. Va.
TICKETMASTER LLC: Blake Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TICKETMASTER LLC: Curry Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TICKETMASTER LLC: DuPreez Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TRADE DESK: Faces Gunderson Suit Over Misleading Proxy
TRANS UNION: Oct. 22 Deadline to File Supplemental Brief Sought
TRAVEL RESORTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chapman Due Feb. 11, 2025
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Conspiracy Class Suit
VERISOURCE SERVICES: Clarke Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Tex.
VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Local Gambling Laws
*********
3M COMPANY: Drinking Water Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Ruley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARGARET RULEY; ROBERT RULEY; ANNA SWIETLIK; ALBERT SWIETLIK;
CATHERINE CONDON; PERRY CONDON; and JOANNE SKOKAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE 3M
COMPANY; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT
DE NEMOURS INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; and THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12564-FDS
(D. Mass., Oct. 6, 2024) is an action against the Defendants for
harm resulting from the contamination of their drinking water,
bodies, and real property with hazardous levels of toxic,
carcinogenic chemicals manufactured, supplied, and sold by the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants' AFFF/Component Products
contains toxic, carcinogenic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS") chemicals. The Defendants knew or should have
known that Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) containing
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS") chemicals
was extremely dangerous to citizens living in the vicinity of
facilities using AFFF such as the the Plaintiffs and members of the
Class in that it placed them at increased risk of adverse,
substantial, and potentially lethal health effects, including but
not limited to various cancers. However, the Defendants did not
warn the public of such risks, says the suit.
The Defendants also conspired to conceal the true toxic nature of
PFOS and PFOA, to profit from the use of AFFF/Component Products
containing PFOS and PFOA, at Plaintiffs' expense, and to attempt to
avoid liability, leading the Town to incur significant costs for
the investigation and remediation of its property under
Massachusetts law.
3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications,
industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other
markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing
operations, marketing channels, and other resources. 3M serves
customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sean K. McElligott, Esq.
Ian W. Sloss, Esq.
Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
Krystyna D. Gancoss, Esq.
Kate Sayed, Esq.
SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP
One Landmark Square, 15th Floor
Stamford, CT 06901
Telephone: (203) 325-4491
Facsimile: (203) 325-3769
Email: smcelligott@sgtlaw.com
isloss@sgtlaw.com
jseredynski@sgtlaw.com
kgancoss@sgtlaw.com
ksayed@sgtlaw.com
ABM GENERAL: Garcia Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER GARCIA, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. ABM GENERAL SERVICES,
INC.; ABM INDUSTRIES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV22821 (Filed Sept. 5, 2024), was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Oct. 9, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08713 to the proceeding.
The complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: failure
to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to
authorize and permit meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; failure to pay sick pay wages at the regular rate of
pay; failure to provide complete and accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to timely pay final wages at separation of
employment; and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff defines, generally, the members of the Class to be
"All current and former hourly non-exempt employees employed by
the Defendants as direct employees as well as temporary
employees employed through temp agencies in California."
ABM is a provider of facility services and solutions.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
E-mail: alexander.chemers@ogletree.com
omar.aniffi@ogletree.com
AIR PRODUCTS: Class Cert Filing Extended to Dec. 6
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CamCara, Inc.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, d/b/a
AST Manufacturing, v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Case No.
5:21-cv-02264-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl
entered an order extending deadlines contained in the August 27,
2024, Joint Stipulation and Order as follows:
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification and supporting brief shall be extended from
Oct. 18, 2024, to Dec. 6, 2024;
2. The deadline for Defendant to file a brief in opposition to
the
motion for class certification shall be extended from Nov.
22,
2024 to Jan. 10, 2025; and
3. The deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply brief in further
support of its motion for class certification shall be
extended
from Dec. 20, 2024, to Feb. 7, 2025.
Air Products is an American international corporation whose
principal business is selling gases and chemicals for industrial
use.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=09gFA5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff, are:
William R. Cruse, Esq.
Heidi G. Crikelair, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
One Logan Square
130 North 18th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
Telephone: (215) 569-6998
E-mail: william.cruse@blankrome.com
heidi.crikelair@blankrome.com
The Counsel for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, are:
William H. Narwold, Esq.
Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
Jessica C. Colombo, Esq.
Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
One Corporate Center
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 882-1681
Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
mjasinski@motleyrice.com
jcolombo@motleyrice.com
mquirk@motleyrice.com
AKARI THERAPEUTICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Peak Bio
------------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Akari Therapeutics, PLC (NASDAQ:AKTX), relating to its
proposed merger with Peak Bio, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Akari shareholders are expected to own approximately 52%
of the combined company.
ACT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
November 7, 2024.
Click here for more
informationhttps://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/akari-therapeutics-plc.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Peak Bio, Inc. (OTC PINK:PKBO), relating to its proposed
merger with Akari Therapeutics, PLC. Under the terms of the
agreement, Peak Bio shareholders are expected to own approximately
48% of the combined company.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 7, 2024.
Click here for more
informationhttps://monteverdelaw.com/case/peak-bio-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]
APPLE COMMUTER: Has Until Oct. 21 to File Class Cert Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAKHA ABULADZE, et al., v.
APPLE COMMUTER, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order
granting the parties a brief extension of time if they do not reach
a settlement in principle.
-- Defendants have until Oct. 21, 2024, to file their opposition
to
the motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs have until Nov. 4, 2024, to file a reply in
further
support of the motion for class certification.
-- The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate ECF 243.
On July 15, 2024, Judge Tarnofsky granted the parties' motion to
extend the deadlines for briefing Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification but stated that no further extensions of those
deadlines would be granted absent very good cause shown.
The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was timely filed on
Aug. 15, 2024.
On Aug. 27, 2024, the parties requested a further extension of the
remainder of the briefing schedule on class certification,
representing that the existing deadlines would hamper the parties'
mediation efforts.
On Aug. 28, 2024, the Judge granted that request, finding that the
parties' representation that the existing deadlines would hamper
mediation efforts constituted the requisite very good cause for the
extension; however, he stated that "I do not anticipate granting
any future requests for extensions of time based on scheduled
mediation sessions or other settlement efforts."
Apple Computer operates concierge, transportation and tour desks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vhXbCB at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARAPAHOE COUNTY, CO: Court Rejects Social Worker Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Levy, writing for Denver Post, reports that federal judges this
week rejected a class-action lawsuit brought by an Aurora
councilwoman against the Arapahoe County Department of Human
Services after a social worker tried to frame her for child sexual
abuse.
Aurora City Council member Danielle Jurinsky accused the department
and ex-employee Robin Niceta of violating her Constitutional rights
to due process and equal protection after Niceta called a child
abuse hotline in 2022 to fraudulently claim that Jurinsky had
molested her own son.
Niceta was found guilty of felony attempting to influence a public
servant and misdemeanor false reporting of child abuse last year.
She pleaded guilty to additional charges earlier this week for
faking a diagnosis of brain cancer to try to avoid accountability
in the first case.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals judges Scott Matheson Jr., Carolyn
McHugh, and Timothy Tymkovich ruled on Oct. 7 that Jurinsky's
class-action case against Niceta and the department could not move
forward, agreeing with a previous ruling by federal district court
judge Philip Brimmer.
The judges held that Jurinsky did not allege facts to support the
claim that Niceta acted under the color of state law, nor did she
back up claims that the county interfered in her relationship with
her son or treated her differently from others who faced similar
situations.
"Although the amended complaint alleged serious misconduct, it was
deficient under the theories of liability Ms. Jurinsky wished to
pursue in this action," the Oct. 7 ruling states.
Jurinsky said Friday, October 11, that she does not plan to appeal
the ruling but was grateful for the opportunity to shed light on
the struggles of other families who, like Jurinsky's, say the
department unjustly separated or tried to separate them from their
children.
"At least, even for a day or a week, these folks got to have their
voices heard," Jurinsky said. "I've taken this fight as far as I
have for other people who didn't have a voice."
Anders Nelson, a spokesman for Arapahoe County, said the county had
no comment on the ruling.
Jurinsky's lawsuit was filed in 2022 and first dismissed by Brimmer
in 2023. [GN]
ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Class Cert Bid Filing Amended to March 24, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS IGLESIAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-09108-JSW (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jeffrey White entered an amended case management
scheduling order as follows:
Event Current Date Proposed
Date
Deadline to File Motion for Jan. 15, 2025 March 24,
2025
Class Certification
Deadline to Oppose Motion for March 21, 2025 June 2, 2025
Class Certification
Deadline to File Reply on May 15, 2025 July 28,
2025
Motion for Class Certification
Deadline to Complete Deposition Feb. 28, 2025 May 13, 2025
of Plaintiff's Experts Regarding
Class Certification
Deadline to Complete Deposition April 28, 2025 July 14,
2025
of Defendant's Experts
Regarding Class Certification
Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice
cocktails, and energy drinks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QDUGxP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Bahar Sodaify, Esq.
Alan Gudino, Esq.
Samuel M. Gagnon, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com
agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com
sgagnon@clarksonlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason H. Wilson, Esq.
Kirby Hsu, Esq.
WILLENKEN LLP
707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3850
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 955-9240
Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
E-mail: jwilson@willenken.com
khsu@willenken.com
- and -
Robert P. Donovan, Esq.
Shirley D. Moreno, Esq.
Nicholas P. Eliades, Esq.
Nicholas H. Pennington, Esq.
Matthew C. Brunelli, Esq.
STEVENS & LEE
669 River Drive, Suite 201
Elmwood Park, NJ 07407
Telephone: (201) 857-6778
Facsimile: (610) 371-7938
E-mail: robert.donovan@stevenslee.com
shirley.moreno@stevenslee.com
nicholas.eliades@stevenslee.com
nicholas.pennington@stevenslee.com
matthew.brunelli@stevenslee.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY YIP, et al., v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 2:21-cv-01254-ART-EJY (D. Nev.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their
stipulation to set a briefing schedule on the Individual
Plaintiffs' motion to stay discovery and motion to stay case.
This is the first request for an extension of these deadlines,
which were set upon the filing of the Individual Plaintiffs'
motions on Sept. 24, 2024.
In order to ensure counsel for BANA has sufficient time to review
the forthcoming amended complaint to determine which Plaintiffs and
claims remain in the litigation, the Parties have agreed that
BANA's deadline to respond to the Individual Plaintiffs' motion to
stay discovery and motion to stay case shall be extended 14 days
until Oct. 22, 2024, and further that the Individual Plaintiffs
shall have 14 days until Nov. 5, 2024, to file their reply.
On Sept. 4, 2024, the Court ordered pursuant to the Parties'
stipulation that the Plaintiffs must amend their respective
operative Complaints by no later than Oct. 8, 2024.
On Sept. 24, 2024, the Individual Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay
discovery and motion to stay case pending class certification.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, and online banking.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zDL9PO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Kind, Esq.
KIND LAW
8860 South Maryland Parkway, Suite 106
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 337-2322
E-mail: mk@kindlaw.com
- and -
George Haines, Esq.
Gerardo Avalos, Esq.
FREEDOM LAW FIRM
8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
Las Vegas, NV 89123
Telephone: (702) 880-5554
E-mail: ghaines@freedomlegalteam.com
gavalos@freedomlegalteam.com
- and -
Joshua Swigart, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC
221 Camino del Rio S., Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (866) 219-3343
E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com
- and -
George O. West III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE O. WEST III
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
Telephone: (702) 664-1168
E-mail: gowesq@cox.net
- and -
E. Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND LLC
1900 The Exchange S.E., Suite 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 444-0773
E-mail: adam@webbllc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly H. Dove, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
1700 S. Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 784-5200
Facsimile: (702) 784-5252
E-mail: kdove@swlaw.com
- and -
James McGarry, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
E-mail: jmcgarry@goodwinlaw.com
- and -
Yvonne Chan, Esq.
JONES DAY
100 High Street
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 449-6914
E-mail: ychan@jonesday.com
BANK OF THE WEST: Class Cert Bid Filing in Manzo Due March 20, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Trina
Thompson entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class certification on
or
before March 20, 2025.
2. Defendant shall file any Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on or before April 17, 2025;
3. Plaintiffs shall file any Reply in support of Plaintiffs'
motion
for class certification on or before May 2, 2025;
4. Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall
be
set on June 24, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., or on a later date that
is
convenient for the Court.
Bank of the West was an American financial institution
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ekw0X1 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
The Defendants is represented by:
Andrew R. Livingston, Esq.
Rachel Capler, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
The Orrick Building
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
Telephone: (415) 773 5700
Facsimile: (415) 773 5759
E-mail: alivingston@orrick.com
rcapler@orrick.com
BH KEYZAR: Faces Hedge Suit Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
----------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B H KEYZAR INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07592 (S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to make its website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered in New York, NY, B H Keyzar Inc. owns and operates
the Keyzar Jewelry online interactive website,
https://keyzarjewelry.com, which offers goods and services
including information about Defendant's jewelry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
BROTHER'S MEN'S: Vega Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BROTHER'S MEN'S WEAR, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-09556 (D.N.J., October 1, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.uniquedesignmenswear.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on February 2, 2024, to access Defendant's website from
his home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered
barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services. The website contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using
keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but
are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Brother's Men's Wear, Inc. operates the website that provides men's
fashion items, particularly suits, dress pants, blazers, and
shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
C&H SUGAR: Lafrades Sues Over Sugar Refinery Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY BELLO-LAFRADES, OTIS BROWN, KEITH LEDERER, GARY PEDRO,
DOMINIC AUSTIN, JOE BELLO, DMAREE BONNER, KEVIN BUSS, FRANCISCO
CEJA, VINCENT CIPPONENI, BEATRICE COOMBS, DON COOPER JR., LARRY
DELGADO, DAVID FRYE, MANUEL FURTADO, MARTIN GONZALEZ, JERRY HILL,
SANDIP HUNDAL, CARL JILES SR., JASPREET JOHL, KEITH LAWSON, KEITH
LUSETTI, ROBERT LYNN, RONALD MCLEN, FRANK MCMILLAN, EDGAR MURILLO,
ROBERTO ORELLANA JR., MICHAEL PELTON, MICHAEL PODPLESKY, RICHO
RICHARDSON, RYAN ROLLINS, SURJIT SANDHU, BALJEET SANGHA, DILBAG
SANGHA, YUVRAJ SHARMA, INDERJIT SINGH, DEV TAKHER, and WALTER
WHITT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. C&H SUGAR COMPANY, INC. and AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING,
INC., DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-07006-KAW
(N.D. Cal., October 7, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
overtime, failure to timely pay wages when due, failure to pay
wages, failure to pay full wages when due, failure to adhere to
California record keeping requirements, unfair business practices,
and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants in a non-exempt
hourly position to perform work related to the processing of raw
sugar into refined sugar within the state of California between
July 29, 2017, and June 28, 2018.
C&H Sugar Company, Inc. is a sugar refining company, with its
corporate headquarters located in Crockett, California.
American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar refining company, with its
corporate headquarters located in West Palm Beach, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David E. Mastagni, Esq.
Taylor Davies-Mahaffey, Esq.
Amanda R. McCarthy, Esq.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, A.P.C.
1912 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: (916) 446-4692
Facsimile: (916) 447-4614
Email: davidm@mastagni.com
tdavies-mahaffey@mastagni.com
amccarthy@mastagni.com
CALIFORNIA: Compels Teachers to Associate With UTLA, Krieger Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY KRIEGER, CARLI GOLBIN, ANNA KINGSTON, and JANE DOE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. ERIC BANKS, in his official capacity as chair of the California
Public Employee Relations Board; ARTHUR A. KRANTZ, in his official
capacity as member of the California Employee Relations Board; LOU
PAULSON, in his official capacity as member of the California
Public Employee Relations Board; ADRIN NAZARIAN, in his official
capacity as member of the California Public Employee Relations
Board; ALBERTO CARVALHO, in his official capacity as Superintendent
of Los Angeles Unified School District, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-08589 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
and nominal damages for violation of civil rights.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the civil
rights of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated teachers employed
by the Los Angeles Unified School District by compelling them to
associate themselves with United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), a
group that supports the destruction of Israel and promotes
animosity and violence towards Jewish people, in order to keep
their employment. The Plaintiffs seek freedom from all association
with UTLA as it is their right under the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shella Alcabes, Esq.
Rebekah Schultheiss, Esq.
Timothy R. Snowball, Esq.
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 552
Olympia, WA 98507
Telephone: (360) 956-3482
Email: salcabes@freedomfoundation.com
rschultheiss@freedomfoundation.com
tsnowball@freedomfoundation.com
CANLIS: Settles Deferred Wage Class Action for $1.45 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Jean Clement, writing for The Seattle Times, reports that
Canlis has settled a class-action lawsuit alleging that the
landmark Seattle restaurant violated the Seattle Wage Theft
Ordinance and state statutes, with the restaurant set to pay $1.45
million to about 300 current and former employees. The lawsuit was
filed against Canlis in July 2023 in King County Superior Court,
and the settlement was finalized in a hearing Friday, October 11.
The suit alleged that the restaurant failed to pay wages for
first-day trial/training or "stage" work, failed to provide rest
breaks, and retained a 20% automatic service charge rather than
distributing those funds to employees, despite menus and customer
bills reading, before mid-2022, "All of these funds are distributed
to our team."
"While we don't agree with these accusations, choosing to settle
was the best way to get back to taking care of our team and our
guests," said restaurant co-owner Brian Canlis in a statement. "For
74 years, Canlis has genuinely loved and served its employees. We
look forward to continuing these traditions."
"We came forward because we believe these practices were unfair to
workers and customers," said Evan Gallo, a former Canlis server and
a named plaintiff. "Those who work in the restaurant industry
deserve better. Seattle deserves better from such a well-known
institution. We are thrilled with the settlement."
A statement on behalf of attorneys for the plaintiffs said the case
"exemplifies the widespread issues in the restaurant and service
industries, where workers often face exploitation with little
recourse."
Steven Toff, attorney for the plaintiffs, also said that "there is
no reason to charge your customers a service charge that you keep,
except to artificially deflate the cost of your menu," calling the
practice deceptive. "Unpaid 'training shifts' are an industrywide
problem in the restaurant business," Toff added. "They're also
illegal, and it's time for that practice to end."
Wage theft is the failure of employers to pay employees what
they're legally owed. It happens to workers in many industries, but
a Seattle Times report in April showed that food service generates
more wage theft complaints in Washington than any other type of
business.
Canlis has received multiple James Beard awards, with several
nominations in the Outstanding Service/Hospitality category. Open
since 1950, the restaurant has been recognized in local and
national press as a premier Seattle fine-dining institution. [GN]
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 link 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 link for more information
https://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 link 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]
CERTUS HEALTHCARE: Parties Must Submit Proposed Class Cert Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGIE WESEL, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. CERTUS HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01479-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order directing the Parties
to file their 26(f) Report and proposed class certification
deadline within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
-- This action concerns Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant did
not compensate her and other similarly situated employees for
overtime they worked.
-- On July 19, 2023, the Court set a case schedule. Importantly,
the
Court ordered the parties to file "an updated 26(f) Report
proposing a Rule 23 class certification deadline" within 14
days
of the close of the notice period.
-- Then, on April 9, 2024, the Court outlined procedures for
disseminating the Notice to eligible individuals. The Court
gave
Plaintiff four weeks to send out the Notice and ordered that
the
notice period would last ninety days.
-- Yet nearly six months have passed since that Order, and the
parties have not filed an updated Rule 26(f) Report.
Certus operates 17 skilled nursing homes and rehabilitation centers
& 3 assisted senior living communities in Ohio.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BLbRhx at no extra
charge.[CC]
CHARLEY LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Vega Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
NORBERTO VEGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARLEY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09551 (D.N.J., October 1, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on February 2, 2024, to access Defendant's website from
his home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered
barriers that denied him full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content and services. The website contains access
barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using
keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers include but
are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Charley, LLC operates the online platform for A Little Cake bakery,
a custom cake bakery in New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CHARLOTTE, NC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Durham
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Durham v. City of
Charlotte, Case No. 3:23-mc-00181 (W.D.N.C., Filed Nov. 20, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Susan C. Rodriguez entered an order denying the
Defendants motion for summary judgment and granting the Plaintiffs
motions for summary judgment and for class certification.
-- In light of that Order which resolved Plaintiffs claims in her
favor and also addressed issues related to the present
discovery
dispute, Case 3:21-CV-00638-RJC-SCR, the parties are directed
to
meet and confer in an attempt to resolve their discovery
dispute
and motions.
-- The parties shall file a status report within 21 days of this
Order.
Charlotte is the most populous city in the U.S. state of North
Carolina and the county seat of Mecklenburg County.[CC]
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Olea Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BILLY ABREGO OLEA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a foreign limited liability company;
CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, a foreign limited liability company;
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington
entities, Case No. 24-2-20130-1 SEA (Filed Sept. 5, 2024), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King
County to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington, on Oct 9, 2024.
The Western Washington District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-01643 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that the Defendants violated RCW 49.58.110,
Washington's pay transparency statute.
Chipotle Mexican is an international chain of fast casual
restaurants.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Anthony Todaro, Esq.
Alexandria Cates, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
Seattle, WA 98104-7029
Telephone: (206) 839-4800
E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com
alexandria.cates@us.dlapiper.com
CINCINNATI LUBES: Bid to Facilitate Notice of FLSA Collective Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARREN LAMONT WILLIAMS,
Individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. CINCINNATI LUBES, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00900 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order denying the
plaintiff's motion to facilitate notice of an FLSA Collective
Action under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
The Court further entered an order that a case management
conference will be held on Dec. 9, 2024, at 4:00 p.m., prior to
which the parties shall file a proposed order establishing case
management deadlines.
Cincinnati Lubes provides automotive preventive maintenance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SXQds8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CKS PACKAGING: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, Fares Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ROMAN FARES and ANGELA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C.K.S. PACKAGING INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-04586-SDG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 9, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs
and the Class's highly sensitive personally identifiable
information and private health information.
The Defendant investigated the Data Breach and confirmed that an
unauthorized actor accessed the Defendant's systems on Dec. 22,
2023, and obtained the Plaintiffs and the Class Members PII. The
Defendant sent notice to those potentially affected by its services
starting in October 2024. As a result, the PII and PHI is in the
hands of cybercriminals who will use the sensitive information for
an unlimited time, the Plaintiffs aver.
Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiffs and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the losses,
out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and the
substantial and imminent risk of identity theft, asserts the suit.
Plaintiffs Roman Fares and Angela Hughes are Citizens of Kansas
City, Missouri and intend to remain there throughout this
litigation.
CKS is a nationwide manufacturer and global supplier of
extrusion/blow and injection molded rigid plastic container.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
DUDLEY LAW, LLC
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (404) 687-8205
E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
COMING SOON: Cantwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMING SOON, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-06918 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the failure to construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.comingsoonnewyork.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most
recently on May 30, 2024, to access Defendant's website from her
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to
build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of
purchasing the drinking glasses, that Plaintiff wished to acquire
from the website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Coming Soon, LLC operates the website that serves as an online
store for its selection of contemporary home and gift items.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CONTAINER STORE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cantwell Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CANTWELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-06920 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the failure to construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.containerstore.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times,
most recently on May 30, 2024, to access Defendant's website from
her home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to
build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly
interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of
purchasing the packing cube set, that Plaintiff wished to acquire
from the website, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Container Store, Inc. operates the website that serves as an
online retailer of packing and organization products and
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
CORA TEXAS: Jimenez-Gonzalez Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO JIMENEZ-GONZALEZ and JOSE ALBERTO TORRES-MARTINEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CORA TEXAS GROWERS AND HARVESTERS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION, INC.
and CORA TEXAS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00820-EWD-RLB (M.D. La., October 2, 2024) seeks redress on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated workers
for Defendants' violation of their rights under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, for breach of contract, and for violation of the
Louisiana Wage Payment Act, Louisiana Revised Statutes.
According to the complaint, the Defendants obtained the labor of
the Plaintiffs and other class members pursuant to H-2A visas based
on Defendant Cora Texas Growers and Harvesters Agricultural
Association, Inc.'s false representations to the United States
government that they would be employed as agricultural workers. In
reality, the Plaintiffs and other class members were employed as
non-agricultural workers driving heavy tractor-trailer trucks over
public roads to the sugar mill operated by Defendant Cora Texas
Manufacturing Company, LLC.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated the federal minimum wage as required by the FLSA
by failing to reimburse costs incurred for Defendants' benefit,
including required specialized drivers' licenses, medical
examination fees, fees related to obtaining H-2A visas, hotel
expenses associated with obtaining H-2A visas, recruitment costs,
transportation expenses from Mexico to the United States, and
border crossing fees, says the suit.
The Defendants also never paid Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated overtime wages despite Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated regularly working more than 40 hours each workweek. The
Defendants also breached their employment contracts with Plaintiffs
and the other class members by failing to pay them the proper
hourly wage rates for the position in which they were employed as
heavy tractor-trailer truck drivers and by failing to comply with
federal and state laws related to employment, the suit alleges.
Cora Texas Growers and Harvesters Agricultural Association, Inc. is
a Louisiana corporation that has its principal place of business in
White Castle.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Davis, Esq.
ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 336-3394
Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com
- and -
Dawson Morton, Esq.
1808 Sixth St.
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (404) 590-1295
E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com
- and -
James M. Knoepp, Esq.
1612 Crestwood Drive
Columbia, SC 29205
Telephone: (828) 379-3169
E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com
DANNER'S INC: Haynes Seeks to Recover Drivers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE ELISE HAYNES, individually and as collective action
representative v. DANNER’S, INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:24-cv-00406
(E.D. Tex., October 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Haynes is a former employee of Defendant who was employed
as a driver. Throughout her employment with Defendant Haynes worked
as a non-exempt hourly wage employee for Defendant. Allegedly,
Defendant failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff Haynes, and her
similarly situated drivers, for all overtime hours worked as
mandated by the FLSA. Among other things, the Defendant altered
timekeeping records in violation of the recordkeeping requirements
of the FLSA, says the Plaintiff.
Based in Texas, Danner's Incorporated provides transportation
services to maritime and shipping companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark W. Frasher, Esq.
REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
801 Laurel Street
Post Office Box 26005
Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
Telephone: (409) 838-1000
Facsimile: (409) 833-8236
E-mail: mfrasher@rmqlawfirm.com
DCI DONOR: Settlement Deal in Wells Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH WELLS, v. DCI DONOR
SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00994-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's unopposed motion for conditional class
certification
and preliminary approval of settlement is granted;
2. For purposes of settlement only, the Rule 23 class is
provisionally certified, Plaintiff Mariah Wells is appointed
class representative, and Megan E. Ross is appointed class
counsel;
3. ILYM Group, Inc. is appointed Settlement Administrator for
this
class action settlement;
4. The Settlement Agreement is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate;
5. The parties' plan for notice to the class is the best notice
practicable and satisfies the due process concerns of Rule
23;
and
6. The parties shall follow the deadlines as delineated by the
Settlement Agreement. A fairness hearing is scheduled for
March
19, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 24 of the Matsui
Courthouse, 501 I. St., Sacramento, CA, 95814.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against the
Defendant alleging class violations of the California Labor Code
and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On April 2, 2024, the Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.
The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a class defined
as:
"all individuals who are or were employed by Defendant as per
diem
non-exempt employees in California from April 30, 2017, through
the
earlier of March 1, 2023, or the date of preliminary approval of
the settlement."
DCI is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization that operates three
federally certified organ procurement organizations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ND3Dv7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DICK'S SPORTING: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07415 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate Defendant's website, www.publiclands.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on March 20, 2024, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to online goods,
content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the
website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs,
the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with
the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the
Osprey Men's Atmos AG 50 Pack, an ergonomic backpack, that
Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. operates the website that offers a wide
range of outdoor gear and apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DOLLARAMA INC: Reaches $2.6-Mil. Settlement in Eco Fees Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Benchetrit of CBC News reports that Dollarama has reached a
$2.6-million settlement in a national class-action lawsuit over
environmental fees applied to products like batteries, electronic
toys and light bulbs.
The settlement was confirmed in a press release on Friday, October
11, by class counsel Joey Zukran of law firm LPC Avocats in
Montreal.
The class action includes anyone who bought a product subject to an
environmental handling fee from a Dollarama store in Quebec between
Dec. 11, 2019 and July 4, 2023, or anywhere else in Canada between
April 29, 2021 and July 4, 2023.
A proposed class action was initially filed in May 2023, alleging
that the discount chain didn't properly display the full price of
products subject to the eco fee.
A previous $2.5-million settlement was then reached in February of
this year, with Dollarama agreeing to pay out the amount in gift
cards, but it was dismissed by a Quebec judge in April.
At the time, decision documents showed that the judge concluded
there wasn't enough proof that the settlement would be beneficial
to class members or that the class action had been structured
correctly.
The new settlement amount is subject to court approval, with a
hearing date set for Dec. 2. Class members are eligible for an
Interac e-transfer of up to $10. [GN]
EDEN BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Hedges Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. EDEN BRANDS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 9, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://ever-eden.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.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase skincare for face 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
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, the suit alleges.
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.
Eden Brands offers skincare products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
EQUIFAX INFO: Bid to Seal Documents Under Seal Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corinna Sullivan, v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JGZ-BGM
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Macdonald entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to
seal. The highlighted portions of the following documents shall
remain under seal: Doc. 56-1 at 7-10; Doc. 56-4 at 6-13; and
Doc.
56-5 at 8-10, 12, 16, 20-21.
-- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to lodge documents
marked
confidential under seal and to file redacted motion;
-- denying as moot the Plaintiff's memorandum of points and
authorities in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification (Doc. 50), which is currently under seal;
Equifax's request to seal is only partially granted because the
company fails to provide compelling reasons to overcome the strong
presumption of public access to the information.
Equifax's conclusory assertions that the information "could be used
by [its] competitors to undercut its competitive advantages," and
that "no countervailing considerations warrant public disclosure,"
fail to constitute sufficiently specific compelling reasons to keep
the information confidential.
Notably, the company fails to delineate what information falls into
each category, and it is not the Court’s duty to try and figure
it out.
Finally, the Court is unpersuaded by Equifax's assertion that the
good cause standard applies to the sealing of documents attached to
a class certification motion.
In April 2022, the Plaintiff Corinna Sullivan filed a first amended
class action complaint against the Defendant, alleging that Equifax
violated provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by
disclosing inaccurate information on her, and other Arizona
residents,' consumer credit reports.
Prior to bringing suit, Sullivan filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona.
Equifax provides data solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pd1hV6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ERSG US: Finney Seeks to Recover Technician's OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVON FINNEY, individually and for all others similarly situated v.
ERSG US HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01238-GTS-MJK (N.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 9, 2024) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid
overtime wages, untimely paid wages, and other damages from the
Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
Despite being manual workers, ERSG allegedly fails to pay the
Plaintiff Finney and the other manual workers their wages within
seven calendar days after the end of the week in which they earned
such wages, as required by NYLL section 191.
Additionally, ERSG does not pay the Plaintiff Finney and the other
Manual Workers for all the hours they work. Instead, ERSG
automatically deducts 30 minutes a day for so-called "meal breaks."
They are thus not paid for this time. But ERSG fails to provide
them with bona fide meal breaks. And they do not actually receive
bona fide meal breaks, the suit claims.
ERSG's auto-deduction policy and time coding policy violate the
FLSA and NYLL by depriving Finney and the other Manual Workers of
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek.
ERSG employed the Plaintiff Finney as a Quality Control Technician,
including in New York.
ERSG is a staffing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan G. Files, Esq.
GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
7030 East Genesee Street
Fayetteville, NY 13066
Telephone: (315) 314-8000
Facsimile: (315) 446-7521
E-mail: rfiles@gclawoffice.com
fgattuso@gclawoffice.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EXPERIAN INFO: Class Cert Scheduling Order Entered in Pennings Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISELI PENNINGS, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02033-N (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey entered a class certification
scheduling order as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs must serve on defendants (but NOT file with
the
Court) their motion for class certification within 45 days of
this Order.
2. Any motions for leave to join additional parties must be
filed
within 30 days of the date of this Order.
3. All discovery except regarding class certification is stayed.
4. The parties may by written agreement alter the deadlines and
limitations in this paragraph, without the need for court
order.
5. To facilitate orderly preparation, the Court has established
an
expedited discovery hearing docket on Monday afternoons.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5rSgBN at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Franklin Resources, Inc. (NYSE: BEN) resulting from
allegations that Franklin Resources may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Franklin Resources securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29671 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
What is this about: On August 21, 2024, Franklin Resources filed a
current report with the SEC. In this current report, the company
announced that it was naming a sole Chief Investment Officer at
Western Asset Management (a company subsidiary) to replace co-Chief
Investment Officer Ken Leech, who had been on a leave of absence,
effective immediately. The current report also stated that Ken
Leech had "received a Wells Notice from the Staff of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission," and that "[i]n light of Mr.
Leech's leave of absence, the Company has determined that closing
its Macro Opportunities strategy [. . .] is in clients' best
interests."
On this news, the price of Franklin Resources stock fell 12.5% on
August 21, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts:
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]
FRED PERRY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Pollitt Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fred Perry USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07082 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 8, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure 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, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Fred
Perry provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.fredperry.com, the suit contends.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff was looking for a clothing store to
buy a trendy fall clothing item, specifically men's jackets. While
browsing the Defendant's website, he found the Hooded Brentham
Jacket. Unfortunately, he faced several accessibility issues that
made it hard for customers who use screen-reading software to
navigate and complete their purchase, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Fred Perry'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.
Fred Perry offers an array of men's, women's, and kids' apparel,
footwear, and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
GIOVANNI PERONE: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 11, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Ethereummax Investor Litigation,
Case No. 2:22-cv-00163-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michael
Fitzgerald entered an order granting stipulation to modify case
management schedule as follows:
Event Current New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs to file Motion for Oct. 11, 2024 Feb. 11,
2025
Class Certification
Defendants to file Opposition to Dec. 13, 2024 Apr. 28,
2025
Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs to file Reply in Jan. 13, 2025 May 27,
2025
Support of Motion for Class
Certification
Hearing on Motion for Class Feb. 10, 2025 June 16,
2025
Certification:
Non-expert Discovery Cut-off: May 12, 2025 Sept. 19,
2025
Expert Discovery Cut-off: June 6, 2025 Oct. 6,
2025
Last Day to Hear Motions: June 9, 2025 Oct. 20,
2025
Last Day to Conduct ADR June 27, 2025 Oct. 31,
2025
Proceeding:
Final Pretrial Conference and Aug. 25, 2025 Jan. 12,
2026
Hearing on Motions in Limine:
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GR44xE at no extra
charge.[CC]
GLOCK INC: Bid to Seal Class Certification Order Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN C. JOHNSON, v.
GLOCK, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order granting in part motion
to seal class certification order:
-- Pursuant to the Court's direction, the parties met and
conferred
on proposed redactions to the Court's Sept. 30, 2024, Order on
motion for class certification and motions to strike.
Compelling
justification exists to seal part of a sentence on page 22 of
that Order.
-- However, the other limited information in that Order that the
parties sought to be sealed was discussed in the public
hearing
on the motions on June 12, 2024. Having already been publicly
disclosed, there is no compelling justification to seal that
information.
Glock is a manufacturer of pistols.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PIgL4i at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRACE HOLMES: Madriz-Rivas Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as LUIS MADRIZ-RIVAS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GRACE HOLMES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 24CV446239 (Filed Aug. 30, 2024), was removed
from the from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on Oct. 8, 2024.
The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-07061 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that the Plaintiff and the persons he seeks to
represent were not paid for all time worked, were not provided
compliant meal periods, were not provided compliant rest periods,
were not timely paid final wages, were not provided accurate wage
statements, and were not reimbursed for business expenses.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent all of the Defendant's non-exempt
employees in California beginning four years before the filing of
the Complaint.
Grace Holmes is engaged in the retail sale of men's and boys
ready-to-wear clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael S. Kun, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-8861
Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com
GREEN SUN: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Robles Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GREEN SUN INC. d/b/a HIBERNICA, Case No. 1:24-cv-07660
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.shophibernica.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Oct. 2,
2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who
had been aware of the Plaintiff's condition, and the potential
benefits and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, on
this same day, the Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website for the
first time with a sighted relative and was very impressed with the
companies thoroughness of each product sold online, detailing each
of its unique characteristics.
However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications
therein. This has not only limited his ability to make informed
decisions but also infringed on his rights as a consumer and
individual with a disability, the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal
access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Green Sun owns and maintains a physical dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
HEAT TRANSFER: Valencia Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEAT TRANSFER WAREHOUSE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07404 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 1, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.heattransferwarehouse.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on March 20, 2024, to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to online goods,
content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the
website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs,
the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with
the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the
decorative vinyl (Siser Easy Puff 12" HTV), that he wished to
acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Heat Transfer Warehouse, Inc. operates the website that offers a
wide range of materials and tools for various heat transfer
applications, including heat transfer vinyl, printable vinyl,
sublimation supplies, transfer papers, and equipment like heat
presses. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
IC SYSTEM: Lezark Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LEZARK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion for
class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
IC System is a nationally recognized debt recovery agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xW1gl6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
Kevin Tucker, Esq.
Chandler Steiger, Esq.
Stephanie Moor, Esq.
EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
Pittsburgh, PA 15208
Telephone: (412) 223-5740
E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
smoore@eastendtrialgorup.com
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Seal Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (RE: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their interim sealing
motion with respect to Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion
for class certification, filed concurrently herewith.
Consistent with the parties' practice to date in this case and the
Order, Plaintiffs are provisionally filing the below-listed
documents in redacted or slip-sheet form in conjunction with their
Reply in Support of their Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs and the Defendant will meet and confer regarding
these documents and will file an omnibus sealing motion (a)
attaching declarations supporting any requests to seal; and (b)
attaching a proposed order with a chart listing all documents
requested to seal, within 14 days after the conclusion of the
parties' briefing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.
As with prior filings of this nature, the parties will conform the
chart included in the omnibus sealing motion to the Court's
Standing Order and prior sealing orders.
Intuitive is an American biotechnology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve
clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9wNkON at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
jspector@srkattorneys.com
ietheridge@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
Daniel McCuaig, Esq.
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS &
TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
dmccuaig@cohenmilstein.com
cbateman@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
Samuel Maida, Esq.
Reena A. Gambhir, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
smaida@hausfeld.com
rgambhir@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael J. Boni, Esq.
Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
John E. Sindoni, Esq.
BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
jsnyder@bonizack.com
jsindoni@bonizack.com
JEREMY BEAN: Kennison Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jon Logan Kennison, et
al., v. Bean, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01845-CDS-MDC (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FGDp6W at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Garland Sues Over Deceptive Product Labeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA GARLAND on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01795-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal., October 7, 2024) seeks
redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the
advertising, labeling, and sale of its Neutrogena Makeup Remover
Cleansing Towelettes.
By falsely labeling the said products as being plant-based, the
Defendant has profited from consumers' preference for natural,
clean and environmentally-friendly products. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's conduct is in breach of
warranty, violates California's Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, et. seq., California's Business & Professions Code
Section 17500, et. seq., California Civil Code Section 1750, et
seq., and is otherwise grounds for restitution on the basis of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Skillman, NJ, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. is
engaged in the research and development of products for newborns,
babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin care,
moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and nursing
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Saputo Consumer Suit Moved to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CARL SAPUTO JR.; VALERIE TORRES;
and JOYCETTE GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and KENVUE
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01117, was removed from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey on Oct. 4, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09622 to the
proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael A.
Shipp, and referred to Magistrate Rukhsahah L. Singh.
The Plaintiffs bring their claims against Defendants individually
and on behalf of a Class of all others similarly situated for (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; (3) breach of implied warranty
under the SongBeverly Act; (4) breach of express warranty; (5)
negligent misrepresentation; and (6) unjust enrichment.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (919) 539-2708
Email: hbryson@milberg.com
- and -
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Luis Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (516) 862-0194
Email: lcardona@milberg.com
KELLANOVA: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Mars Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Kellanova (NYSE: K), relating to its proposed merger
with Mars, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Kellanova common
stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive
$83.50 in cash per share.
NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
November 1, 2024.
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 the above listed company 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]
KIK INTERNATIONAL: Forte Files Suit Over Georgia Plant Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHERI FORTE, individually, on behalf of her minor child L.C., and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KIK
INTERNATIONAL LLC, d/b/a KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, and BIO-LAB, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04453-SEG (N.D. Ga., October 1, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for damages resulting from
a fire and explosion at its Conyers, Georgia, chemical plant on
September 29, 2024.
In the early hours of September 29, 2024, a chemical reaction
erupted at Defendant's chemical plant in Conyers, Georgia, known as
the "Biolab" or "Bio Lab" chemical plant. The fire and explosion
resulted in an enormous chemical fire that caused a massive toxic
smoke and dust plume that could be seen for miles.
This class action complaint seeks redress for residents, property
owners, employees and businesses living, working, and/or located in
and around Defendant's chemical plant fire in Conyers, Georgia,
that resulted in the contamination of, and exposure to, massive
amounts of chlorine gas and other toxic chemicals. Because of this
chemical fire, the Plaintiffs and the proposed Class have all
suffered, among other things, loss of use and enjoyment of
property, property damage, exposure to toxic material,
inconvenience, disruption, economic damages, and a substantial
increase in future medical problems associated with the exposure to
toxic chemicals, says the suit.
Kik International LLC manufactures consumer products. The Company
produces laundry and household cleaners, over the counter
medicated, pharmaceutical, health, beauty care, specialty food,
household and personal care, automotive, and other products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
ALONSO & WIRTH
1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 303
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 928-4472
E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
dwirth@alonsowirth.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, 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
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.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
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Baby Wipes Contain PFAS, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free
baby wipes are unsafe to use because they contain, or risk
containing, dangerous levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), commonly known as forever chemicals.
The 27-page lawsuit against manufacturer Kimberly-Clark Corporation
emphasizes that PFAS, a group of man-made chemicals known to be
harmful to children, persist and accumulate in the body and
environment over time and can be harmful even at very low levels.
Per the case, exposure to PFAS has been linked to thyroid
disorders, immunotoxic effects and cancer, among other health
issues.
The complaint states that independent lab testing conducted by the
plaintiffs' counsel with a Department of Defense ELAP-certified
laboratory revealed that the Huggies Simply Clean baby wipes
contain 305 parts per trillion of PFAS.
Per the lawsuit, consumers relied on the "simply clean" and "gentle
ingredients" statements, among others, on Huggies labels in
deciding whether to buy the baby wipes, and paid a premium based on
these allegedly "false and misleading" claims. Huggies Simply Clean
packages also include claims that the baby wipes are
"hypoallergenic," "dermatologically tested, "alcohol free" and
"paraben free," with the list of purported product ingredients
described simply as "gentle," the filing relays.
"Nowhere on this list of 'gentle ingredients' is listed any
compound of PFAS or risk that the Product may contain them," the
lawsuit states.
The suit shares that PFAS have been used to make nonstick cookware,
water-repellent clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, cosmetics,
firefighting foam and products that resist grease, water and oil.
Per the case, PFAS are often called forever chemicals because they
break down slowly, if at all, and build up over time in the body
and environment.
In children, PFAS exposure has been linked to a lower antibody
response for some vaccines, the case adds, asserting that the
presence of forever chemicals in baby wipes is particularly
concerning given the sensitivity of babies' skin and how often
their skin comes into contact with the Huggies wipes.
"No reasonable consumer would expect the Product, marketed
prominently as a baby product made with 'plant-based,' 'gentle
ingredients' and free from other harmful chemicals to contain
non-natural, harmful, toxic PFAS chemicals."
The Huggies wipes lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the
United States who bought Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free baby
wipes during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
LANCASTER GENERAL: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK,
INC. d/b/a ST. LUKE'S UNIVERITY HEALTH NETWORK, et al., v.
LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02157-JLS
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order that
oral argument on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall
be held on Dec. 10, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in the courtroom of the
undersigned at The Gateway Building, 201 Penn Street, 5th Floor,
Reading, Pennsylvania 19601.
Lancaster General Health is a regional hospital located in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N9z0g2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Court Tosses Amended Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as BANDOL LIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDWARD
HIGHTOWER, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:23CV1454 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted (i) Defendants Edward Hightower,
Adam Kroll and Daniel A. Ninivaggi's Motion to Dismiss the amended
securities class-action complaint brought by Lead Plaintiffs Andrew
and Joshua Strickland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and (ii) the Defendants' Request for Judicial
Notice and takes judicial notice of Exhibits 1-11.
The action concerns statements made by Defendants on behalf of
Lordstown Motors Corp. that Plaintiffs allege misled investors
about the state of LMC's partnership with Foxconn, an electronics
manufacturer out of Taiwan. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed
to disclose significant problems in the partnership leading up to
Foxconn's repudiation of the agreement with LMC and the bankruptcy
of LMC.
Hightower has acted as LMC's President and as Chief Executive
Officer beginning in July 2022. Kroll has served as LMC's Chief
Financial Officer since October 2021. Ninivaggi served as LMC's CEO
from August 2021 to July 2022. After Foxconn repudiated its
agreement with LMC, LMC filed an Adversary Complaint against
Foxconn alleging fraud and breach of contract, which accused the
company of intentionally driving LMC into bankruptcy. By failing to
disclose the problems in the partnership prior to the bankruptcy
proceedings, Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78j(b) and Sec. 78t(a), and associated Rule 10b–5 of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b–5.
Plaintiffs allege the Class Period begins on August 4, 2022, during
LMC's earnings conference call for the second quarter of 2022.
Plaintiffs argue Defendants' statements generally discussing the
Foxconn partnership misled the public due to the failure to
disclose delays and breaches happening behind the scenes.
Plaintiffs allege Foxconn "stonewalled" LMC, delayed both
entering into and fulfilling their obligations under the Joint
Venture Agreement, and "consistently failed to honor its
agreements." Therefore, according to Plaintiffs, Defendants omitted
facts that rendered their public statements misleading. In claiming
the statements discussing the agreement were misleading, Plaintiffs
rely on assertions that the CEO of Foxconn "refused" to meet with
Hightower and Foxconn failed to grant LMC access to the Model C and
Model E vehicle designs.
Plaintiffs also allege Defendants mischaracterized the state of
their partnership after the companies abandoned the JVA and entered
into the Initial Agreement, as amended. Plaintiffs conclude that
the only reason the companies entered into a new agreement was
because Foxconn "forced" LMC to renegotiate through their failure
to provide the Model C and Model E vehicle designs and "constant
bad faith conduct."
The Court says without alleging specific facts contradicting
existing statements, Plaintiffs fail to plead omissions with the
required particularity. Because they did not result in an
affirmative misleading statement, Defendants had no duty to
disclose the omitted details behind the formation of the IA, as
amended, the Court notes.
To the extent Plaintiffs argue that Defendants' general statements
describing collaboration between LMC and Foxconn mischaracterized
the relationship, the Court finds the argument to be lacking in
merit.
According to the Court, Plaintiffs do not allege facts in the
Amended Class Action Complaint that would show the parties did not
work collaboratively. Instead, Plaintiffs argue that Foxconn's
general "bad faith" and the delays in producing the Endurance S
LMC's first electric vehicle S must mean the companies were not
working together.
Overall, the breaches under the abandoned JVA, delays, and other
minor issues do not render general, positive statements describing
the partnership or agreements inaccurate, the Court states. As
such, Plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient misstatements or
omissions upon which investors would reasonably rely, the Court
concludes.
Defendants made numerous cautionary statements about the Foxconn
partnership throughout the class period.
The Court points out Contrary to Plaintiffs' position, these
disclosures do not contain mere generalities applicable to any
partnership. Instead, they specifically reference the Foxconn
agreements and the specific reasons the partnership could fail. In
addition, none of the forward-looking statements or warnings in the
case at bar disclose risks that had already materialized.
Therefore, the Safe Harbor Doctrine excuses from liability the
allegations regarding all of Defendants' forward-looking statements
qualified by the meaningful cautionary language in LMC's SEC
reports, the Court finds.
Many of Plaintiffs' allegations rest on LMC's claims of "bad faith"
made against Foxconn in the Adversary Complaint, which was filed
after Foxconn's repudiation.
While Defendants may have been aware of the breaches and delays LMC
experienced during the partnership, the law does not require them
to reach and disclose conclusions about the future of the
relationship based on the issues. In the Amended Class Action
Complaint, Plaintiffs generally allege that each misleading
statement omitted the facts that Foxconn "stonewalled" LMC and was
"determined to maliciously and in bad faith destroy Lordstown's
business in an effort to strip Lordstown's assets and poach its
talent at little cost."
The Court finds Plaintiffs do not plead sufficient evidence or
circumstances that would have alerted Defendants to Foxconn's bad
faith prior to their repudiation. When viewed holistically,
Plaintiffs' allegations fail to give rise to a strong inference of
scienter, especially in light of more compelling opposing
inferences, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lYYZZQ
About Lordstown Motors Corp.
Lordstown Motors Corp. -- http://www.lordstownmotors.com/-- was an
electric vehicle OEM developing innovative light duty commercial
fleet vehicles, with the Endurance all electric pickup truck as its
first vehicle. It has engineering, research and development
facilities in Farmington Hills, Mich. and Irvine, Calif.
On June 27, 2023, Lordstown Motors Corp. and two affiliated debtors
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 23-10831). The cases
are pending before Judge Mary F. Walrath.
The Debtors tapped White & Case, LLP and Richards, Layton & Finger,
P.A., as bankruptcy counsels; Baker & Hostetler, LLP as special
counsel; Jefferies, LLC as investment banker; KPMG, LLP as auditor;
and Silverman Consulting as restructuring advisor. Kurtzman Carson
Consultants, LLC is the Debtors' claims and noticing agent and
administrative advisor.
The U.S. Trustee for Regions 3 and 9 appointed an official
committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Debtors' Chapter
11 cases. The committee tapped Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders,
LLP, as legal counsel and Huron Consulting Group Inc. as financial
advisor.
In October 2023, Lordstown Motors received Bankruptcy Court
approval to sell its manufacturing assets to a new company
affiliated with its founder and former CEO Stephen Burns for $10.2
million. LAS Capital, majority-owned by Burns, acquired the
Debtors' intellectual property, business records, and machinery
including assembly lines for electric vehicle motors and batteries.
The Debtors later renamed to Nu Ride Inc.
The Court on March 6, 2024, confirmed the Debtors' Third Modified
First Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan. The Plan was declared
effective on March 14, 2024.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Griffin Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY GRIFFIN, et al., v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:24-cv-06312-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 4, 2024 at 9:00 a.m., will move the Court
for entry of an order granting an extension of time to file a
motion for certification that this action, which is about systemic
access barriers within City of Los Angeles parks and park
facilities for persons with mobility disabilities, is maintainable
as a class action.
This motion is made pursuant to this Court's Standing Order, which
provides that the class certification motion deadline is 90 days
from the date the complaint was served, unless a showing of good
cause has been made. The current deadline is Nov. 19, 2024.
This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the
accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the concurrently
filed Declaration of Jinny Kim, all pleadings and papers on file in
this action, and any oral argument that may be presented.
The Plaintiffs seek an extension of 120 days from the Parties' Rule
26(f) conference to allow the Plaintiffs to undertake discovery
pertinent to the requirements of class certification. There is
currently no date set for the initial Scheduling Conference and no
pre-trial deadlines have been set by Court Order.
This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 7- 3, which took place on Sept. 20 and 25, 2024.
This lawsuit challenges the City of Los Angeles’s systemic
failures to take necessary action, which have denied persons with
mobility disabilities full and equal access to its parks and park
facilities. As alleged, the widespread inaccessibility of
Defendant’s parks and park facilities are a direct result of the
Defendant’s deficient or non-existent policies, procedures and
practices in the area of disability access compliance
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a putative class of
persons with mobility disabilities, including those who use
wheelchairs, scooters, canes or other mobility aids and who use or
desire to use the parks and park facilities that are open to the
public in the City of Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmHygl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jinny Kim, Esq.
Amelia Evard, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
2001 Center Street, Third Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
Telephone: (510) 665-8644
Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
E-mail: jkim@dralegal.org
aevard@dralegal.org
- and -
Guy B. Wallace, Esq.
Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN,
DARDARIAN & HO
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
E-mail: ldardarian@gdbhlegal.com
alee@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
Paula Pearlman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PAULA PEARLMAN
9610 Beverlywood Street
Los Angeles, CA 90034-1825
Telephone: (310)558-4808
E-mail: pauladpearlman@gmail.com
MAXIMUS HUMAN: Andrisani Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JULIE MORA ANDRISANI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MAXIMUS HUMAN SERVICES, INC.,
MAXIMUS, INC., THE PANTHER GROUP, INC., 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 U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on October 7, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-02766-DAD-JDP to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay all minimum wages, failure to pay all overtime
wages, failure to provide rest periods and pay missed rest period
premiums, failure to provide meal periods and pay missed meal
period premiums, failure to maintain accurate employment records,
failure to pay wages timely during employment, failure to pay all
wages earned and unpaid at separation, failure to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements, and unfair business practices.
Maximus Human Services, Inc. is a health care company,
headquartered in Virginia.
Maximus, Inc. is an American government services company,
headquartered in Virginia.
The Panther Group, Inc. is a staffing firm, headquartered in
Massachusetts. [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
Telephone: (415) 918-3000
Facsimile: (415) 918-3034
Email: bantonucci@constangy.com
nstratton@constangy.com
MCCARTER & ENGLISH: Class Settlement in Karnas Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MCCARTER
& ENGLISH, LLP, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-20480-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order preliminarily approving
class settlement as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class
action
settlement as to a certain defendant is granted.
2. The Court preliminarily finds that, for purposes of
settlement
only, the lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for
class action treatment under FED. R. CIV. P. 23
3. The Court preliminarily certifies, for purposes of settlement
only, the following class:
a. All persons or Entities in the United States who, from
Oct. 23, 2019, to the date of preliminary approval,
purchased
or enrolled in an EPA or VGX Tokens.
b. Excluded from the Class is the Settling Defendant and its
officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
and
employees, the Voyager Defendants and their officers,
directors, affiliates, legal representatives, and
employees,
any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial
officer presiding over this matter and the members of
their
immediate families and judicial staff. Also, excluded are,
any Settlement Class Member who properly excludes
themselves
from these settlements.
4. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court appoints, for purposes
of
settlement only, the Class Representatives to serve as Class
Representative Plaintiffs and Adam Moskowitz of the Moskowitz
Law Firm, PLLC and David Boies of Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
to
serve as CoLead Class Counsel pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.
23(c).
5. The Court approves the Notice Plan. The Class's proposed
Notice
Plan satisfies the fairness standards set forth in FED. R.
CIV.
P. 23.
6. The Court stays these Settlement proceedings pending
resolution
of the claims against the the non-settling Defendants. This
case
shall remain closed.
McCarter is an American full-service law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yi7rpn at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3127: 22 Data Security Breach Suits Consolidated in W.D. Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict action captioned "In re: Evolve Bank & Trust
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3127, Nathaniel
M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, consolidates 16 cases from the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Tennessee, five from the Eastern District
of Arkansas and one from the Western District of North Carolina,
all to the Western District of Tennessee and, with the consent of
that court, assigned them to Judge Sheryl H. Lipman for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. All responding plaintiffs and defendant
Evolve Bank & Trust unanimously support centralization, with the
sole disagreement limited to selection of the transferee district.
These putative class actions present common factual questions
concerning an alleged data security breach Evolve announced in June
2024 that led to the release of the personal information of over
seven million consumers on the dark web. The common factual
questions include how and when the breach occurred, Evolve's data
security practices with respect to safeguarding personal
information, the investigation into the breach, how and when Evolve
provided notice of the breach, and the nature of the alleged
damages.
The panel said that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification and expert witness issues; and
conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary. Moreover, the Western District of Tennessee is an
appropriate transferee district for this litigation as Evolve's
counsel represented at oral argument that its headquarters are
located in this district and that its "main office" is in Arkansas.
But that main Arkansas office and another office in Arkansas are
nearest the Western District of Tennessee's courthouse, which
suggests that the district offers a relatively convenient and
accessible transferee forum. Lastly, most of the related actions
are pending in this district, and it has broad support from both
plaintiffs and Evolve.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3127-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
MDL 3128: Five Suits Transferred to D. Minn.
--------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict action captioned "In re: Dividend Solar
Finance, LLC, and Fifth Third Bank Sales and Lending Practices
Litigation," MDL No. 3128, Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two
cases from the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
and one each from the Middle District of Florida, District of New
Jersey and the Eastern District of Virginia, all to the District of
Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to
Judge Katherine M. Menendez for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
These actions allege that plaintiffs were induced to finance the
purchase of residential solar systems with Dividend through the
deceptive sales tactics of solar sales and installation companies
with which Dividend partnered. They claim that the solar companies
made false representations regarding both the solar systems to be
installed and the terms of Dividend's financing, and that the
amounts of the loans improperly included undisclosed finance fees.
They share common questions of fact concerning the relationship
between Dividend and the solar companies, the tactics employed by
the solar companies to sell solar systems and originate loans,
whether Dividend and the solar installers worked together to
develop and employ such tactics, the nature of the sale and loan
agreements, and representations made by the solar companies and
Dividend regarding the solar power systems and the terms of the
agreements. Four actions are putative class actions brought on
behalf of overlapping classes of solar system purchasers.
Plaintiffs variously assert claims for unjust enrichment, violation
of various state consumer protection laws, fraudulent concealment,
negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Truth in Lending
Act or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
Plaintiffs opposing centralization argue that the actions involve
different legal claims, different proposed classes, and numerous
case-specific issues of fact, and that the sole overlapping issue
-- whether Dividend charged a hidden, upfront "platform" fee -- is
legal rather than factual.
Though the actions involve individual questions of fact --
plaintiffs purchased solar systems from a variety of different
solar companies and had separate experiences with the salespersons
and systems installed, common factual issues exist across the
cases, in particular questions relating to whether Dividend and the
solar companies were jointly engaged in a scheme to induce
homeowners to purchase solar systems and enter into loan agreements
through deceptive means, rules the panel.
Moreover, discovery will overlap substantially, and centralization
will avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings on pretrial issues,
including class certification," the panel adds.
A full-text copy of the court's October 3, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3128-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
META PLATFORMS: Infringes Copyrighted Work, Farnsworth Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER FARNSWORTH, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-06893 (N.D. Cal., October 1, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff under the Copyright Act seeking
redress for him and other authors over Meta's infringement of their
work.
Plaintiff Farnsworth, a best-selling fiction author, alleges that
Meta exploited his works without authorization, made illicit copies
of them, and then fed those copies to its commercial product called
a Large Language Model. Meta did this to enhance the quality of its
LLM's language output and, ultimately to have a more desirable and
profitable LLM product to compete in the AI arms race that has
developed over the last few years, asserts the Plaintiff.
Meta calls its set of LLMs "Llama." Like other LLMs, Llama is an AI
software program designed to emit convincingly naturalistic text
outputs in response to user prompts. The quality of Llama's output
is determined by the quality of the data it is fed. Meta knew that
the more high-quality, long-form text it fed to Llama, the better
Llama would perform commercially. In this way, Llama is what it
ingests. By willfully including unauthorized and pirated copies of
Plaintiff's copyrighted literary works in its development work,
pre-training, and training data, Meta exploited authors' literary
talents without consent or compensation of any kind, the suit
alleges.
Meta Platforms, Inc., doing business as Meta and formerly named
Facebook, operates as a social technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
Reilly T. Stoler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
dhutchinson@lchb.com
rstoler@lchb.com
- and -
Rachel Geman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013-1413
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: rgeman@lchb.com
- and -
Scott J. Sholder, Esq.
CeCe M. Cole, Esq.
COWAN DEBAETS ABRAHAMS & SHEPPARD LLP
60 Broad Street, 30th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 974-7474
E-mail: ssholder@cdas.com
ccole@cdas.com
MNG MISSOURI: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Robles Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MNG MISSOURI HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a
CBD KRATOM, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07521 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 4,
2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.shopcbdkratom.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
MNG Missouri Holdings LLC d/b/a CBD Kratom offers selection of
cannabis and kratom products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
NATIONAL RIFLE: Riddick Seeks to Stop Sex-Based Pricing Promotion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERT RIDDICK and LUCIANO ALEXANDRE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08596 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Civil Code's Unruh Civil Rights Act and Gender Tax Repeal Act of
1995.
The case arises from the National Rifle Association of America's
(NRA) practice of employing sex-based pricing for its annual,
multi-year, or lifetime memberships. The NRA's sex-based membership
pricing provides only women deeply discounted memberships, while
denying the same discounts to men. In addition, the NRA provides
new female members with an "NRA sherpa fleece blanket," which the
NRA denies new male and nonbinary members, with the disparity
against based solely on the new members' sex. The Plaintiffs seek
to redress the NRA's arbitrary, invidious, unlawful, and
unreasonable sex-based pricing promotion that intentionally denied
all patrons, male, female, and nonbinary, equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services, and discriminated
against them based solely on their sex.
The National Rifle Association of America is a gun rights advocacy
group headquartered in Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alfred G. Rava, Esq.
RAVA LAW FIRM
3667 Voltaire Street
San Diego, CA 92106
Telephone: (619) 238-1993
Email: alrava@ravalaw.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judgment on Pleadings Denied in Salom Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICARDO SALOM, et al., on
their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00444-BJR
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein entered an
order order denying judgment on the pleadings:
1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Judicial Notice is granted.
2. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company's
Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied;
3. Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Champion Mortgage Company's
Motion
to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on its Motion for Judgment
on
the Pleadings is denied as moot;
4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Appropriate Relief Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23(d) is denied without prejudice;
5. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the Plaintiffs'
class and subclasses and to allow supplementation remains
pending;
6. Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, which is not yet ripe
for
decision, remains pending; and
7. The parties are ordered to confer and file an Amended Joint
Status Report within 15 days of the Court's ruling on ECF No.
74.
Based upon Plaintiffs' allegations, the documents provided by both
Plaintiffs and Nationstar, and the plain language definition of
"assignee," the Court concludes that Nationstar is an assignee of
the Lender, and the notice-and-cure provision is a benefit that
inures to Nationstar.
In addition to the allegations and the plain text of the mortgage
documents, the Court finds persuasive the reasoning by multiple
courts in this Circuit that have explicitly found that loan
servicers are assignees of the Lender’s servicing right.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the notice-and-cure provision
applies to Nationstar.
Under the circumstances present here, this Court concludes that
enforcing the notice provision to Nationstar’s benefit does
contravene the purpose of protecting unsophisticated debtors.
Therefore, Plaintiffs are not barred from pursuing their remedial
statutory claims against Nationstar for lack of pre-suit notice to
Nationstar. Similarly, because Plaintiffs provided notice and an
opportunity to cure prior to filing suit, even though not directly
to Nationstar, Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim against
Nationstar is not barred for lack of pre-suit notice to
Nationstar.
Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action accusing Defendants,
Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association
("Freddie Mac"), of illegally charging fees whenever homeowners
request payoff statements for their loans.
In addition to their claims asserted under the Federal Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Plaintiffs also assert
claims under Washington and Maryland state law, alleging violations
of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), the
Washington State Consumer Agency Act ("WCPA"), and the Washington
State Collection Agency Act ("WCAA").
Nationstar is a home loan servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iUP1xu at no extra
charge.[CC]
OXFORD HEALTH: Unredacted Class Cert Bid Remains Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C., et al., v.
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order granting
in part the following motions:
(i) Plaintiffs' June 7, 2024, motion requesting that the
unredacted versions of their Motion for Class Certification
and Exhibits A, B (filed entirely under seal), C (filed
entirely under seal), D, E, F, J, K, and L, to the First
Declaration of Elizabeth K. Green, now filed under seal at
Dkts. 89-2 to 89-5, remain under seal;
(ii) Defendant's June 10, 2024 letter motion, joining in
Plaintiffs' request as to Exhibits A, D, E, F, J, K, and L;
and
(iii) Defendant's June 7, 2024 motion requesting that the
unredacted
versions of Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10-16 to the
Declaration
of Lauren Nunez in Support of Defendant's Opposition To
Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification, now filed under
seal at Dkt. 100, remain under seal.
The motions are granted in part for substantially the reasons set
forth. However, the Court is unconvinced that widely-available plan
documents such as the brochure entitled "Your Oxford Medical
Benefits Plan Information" and the "Oxford Health Insurance, Inc.
NY Large Oxford Exclusive Liberty Plan Certificate of Coverage &
Member Handbook," Green Decl. Ex. B at ECF pp. 43-200; id. Ex. C at
ECF pp. 9-168, should remain under seal.
No later than Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs must either (1) file a
supplemental letter explaining why these documents require sealing
or (2) refile them in public view. The Clerk of Court is directed
to close the motions at Dkts. 88, 98, and 101.
Oxford provides life, accident and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LsqMQY at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Suit Stayed Pending Settlement OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMEY v. THE PENNSYLVANIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00753 (W.D. Pa., Filed May 26,
2020), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order granting
unopposed motion for settlement, motion to certify class, motion to
appoint counsel, motion for hearing re: Plaintiffs unopposed motion
to preliminarily approve class action settlement, certify the
class, appoint class counsel, approve proposed class notice, and
schedule a final approval hearing.
-- Video settlement hearing scheduled for Feb. 18, 2025 at 1:30
p.m.
-- Settlement hearing to be held via Zoom.
-- Video Hearing information will be circulated to the parties in
advance of the hearing.
-- This matter is stayed pending final approval of settlement.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.
The Pennsylvania State University is a public state-related
land-grant research university with campuses and facilities
throughout Pennsylvania.[CC]
PLANET BIOGAS: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Skinner
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skinner AgSolutions Inc.,
v. PlanET Biogas USA Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01237-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.
PlanET was founded in 1998 specializing in the design, construction
and service of advanced biogas plants.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Skmxpq at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRENTKE ROMICH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Jackson Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA JACKSON, on behalf of her minor child, J.L., Plaintiff v.
PRENTKE ROMICH COMPANY d/b/a PRC-SALTILLO, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-01708 (N.D. Ohio, October 2, 2024) is a class action
arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
approximately 51,627 Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information and protected health information.
According to the complaint, Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network
that contained the private information of Plaintiff and other
individuals. The Data Breach occurred on August 14, 2024, and
Defendant sent a data breach notice letter to affected individuals
on or about September 25, 2024. The Data Breach was a direct result
of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
Plaintiff and other individuals' private information with which it
was entrusted for either treatment or employment, or both, says the
suit.
Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of all similarly situated individuals whose private
information was stolen during the Data Breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) unjust enrichment,
and (vi) declaratory relief.
Prentke Romich Company is developer of speech-generating devices,
applications, and several other language systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
DANNLAW
15000 Madison Avenue
Lakewood, OH 44107
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: mdann@dannlaw.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Tanner R. Hilton, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
RECURSION PHARMACEUTICALS: M&A Probes Merger With Exscientia PLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered money for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm
in the 2018-2022 ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We
are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and
are investigating:
-- Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:RXRX), relating to its
proposed merger with Exscientia PLC. Under the terms of the
agreement, each share of Exscientia common stock will be
automatically converted into the right to receive 0.7729 shares of
Recursion common stock.
ACT WHILE YOU CAN. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November
12, 2024.
Click here for more
informationhttps://monteverdelaw.com/case/recursion-pharmaceuticals-inc/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Excientia PLC (NASDAQ:EXAI), relating to its proposed merger
with Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, each share of Exscientia common stock will be
automatically converted into the right to receive 0.7729 shares of
Recursion common stock.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 12, 2024.
Click here for more
informationhttps://monteverdelaw.com/case/excientia-plc/. 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]
RED LAND: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Picon Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Red Land Cotton, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07615 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 8, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed 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, 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 Red Land Cotton provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.redlandcotton.com, the suit contends.
On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching online for bedding
accessories. While searching online, she came across the
Defendant's website. When trying to navigate through the products,
she encountered difficulty in navigating the site due to
accessibility issues, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Red
Land Cotton's policies, practices, and procedures to 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.
Red Land offers bed sheet sets, pillowcases, flat and fitted
sheets, bath sheets, bath towels, hand towels, washcloths,
loungewear, and other home goods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
RED TOOLBOX: Faces Class Action Suit Over Toys' High Lead Content
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org reports that Red Toolbox
USA faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the recalled
long handle hoe and rake found in the company's Stanley Jr. Kids
Wheelbarrow and 7-Piece Garden Sets are unsafe to use given that
the toys contain levels of lead that exceed the federal lead paint
ban.
The 23-page recall lawsuit against Red Toolbox USA, whose brands
include Stanley Jr., Black+Decker, Tasty Junior, Oklahoma Joe's and
Char-Broil, claims the company failed to disclose to consumers or
on product labels that the toys come with a risk of lead poisoning.
More than 459,000 of the Stanley Jr. Kids products at issue were
recalled in the U.S. by Red Toolbox on September 12, 2024, with the
defendant urging consumers to immediately stop using the long
handle hoe and rake and take them away from children.
The recall covered only the rake and hoe in the Stanley Jr. Kids
Wheelbarrow and 7-Piece Garden Sets bearing the model number
1662178 and with a manufacturing date of 12.2023.
Although there is no comprehensive ban in the United States on lead
in toys, the complaint says, it is illegal for a product's paint to
contain a more than 0.06-percent concentration of lead, which can
lead to nerve damage, learning and behavioral problems and other
serious issues if ingested.
The filing stresses that the Stanley Jr. Kids toys are marketed and
advertised specifically toward children, for whom exposure to
lead-based paint and lead-contaminated dust can be especially
dangerous.
"Plaintiffs bargained for a garden toy set that was safe for their
children to use," the suit reads. "Defendant's Products were, and
still are, unsafe due to the risk of poisoning because of the level
of lead that can be found in them."
The case notes that other companies make and sell non-poisonous
toys, evidencing the fact that the lead poisoning risk inherent to
the kids wheelbarrow and garden toy sets is "demonstrably
avoidable."
According to the lawsuit, proposed class members have been injured
financially as a result of buying a "worthless and dangerous"
product under the presumption that it was safe for its intended
use.
The recall lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United
States who bought the long handle hoe and rake contained in the
Stanley Jr. Kids Wheelbarrow and 7-Piece Garden Sets with the model
number 1662178 and a manufacturing date of 12.2023. [GN]
ROBLOX CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Roblox Corporation (NYSE: RBLX) resulting from
allegations that Roblox may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Roblox securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29667 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On October 8, 2024, Hindenburg Research issued
a report entitled "Roblox: Inflated Key Metrics For Wall Street And
a Pedophile Hellscape for Kids." In this report, Hindenburg stated
that its "research indicates that Roblox is lying to investors,
regulators, and advertisers about the number of 'people' on its
platform, inflating the key metric by 25-42%+." Further, "[b]eyond
inflated key user metrics, our in-game research revealed an X-rated
pedophile hellscape, exposing children to grooming, pornography,
violent content and extremely abusive speech."
On this news, Roblox stock fell by 2.1% on October 8, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
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]
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Gower Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN GOWER, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS INC. and
ROUNDY'S ILLINOIS, LLC, d/b/a MARIANO'S, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-09346 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Act for
Plaintiff and other current and former employees.
Pursuant to Defendants' policy, pattern, and practice, Defendants
did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees proper
overtime wages for hours they worked for Defendants' benefit in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit.
The Plaintiff was employed by and was permitted to work for
Defendants in their Aurora, Illinois and Elmhurst, Illinois
locations as a Produce Manager from 2014 through 2019, and then
again from September 2022 through the present.
Roundy's Supermarkets Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
publicly-traded Kroger Co., operates over 150 retail grocery
stores, including over 40 Mariano's locations throughout the
Chicagoland area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Andrew Head, Esq.
Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
4422 N. Ravenswood Ave.
Chicago, IL 60640
Telephone: (404) 924-4151
Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
- and -
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Christopher M. Timmel, Esq.
KLAFTER LESSER, LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (914) 934-9200
Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com
christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com
SAZ BUSINESS: Coxolca Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------
Ovidio Coxolca, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SAZ Business, LLC; Sunshine Mart, Inc.; Bellfort6920, LLC; Deedar
Noor Ali; and Sharif Rahim Ali, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-03713
(S.D. Tex., Oct. 1, 2024) is a collective action suit under the
Fair Labor Standards, seeking to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid wages,
including overtime wages, from the Defendants.
The complaint asserts the failure of the Defendants to pay
Plaintiff Coxolca and Members of the Plaintiff Class their wages,
including overtime wages, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff
and Members of the Plaintiff Class routinely worked in excess of 40
hours a week at Defendants' request, yet did not receive overtime
wages as the FLSA requires, says the suit.
Plaintiff Coxolca was employed by the Defendants as an hourly
employee who worked at several gas stations from 2016 until October
31, 2023.
SAZ Business, LLC owns and operates gasoline stations with
convenience stores and gambling operations in Houston, Texas and
surrounding areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
430 W. Bell Street
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 898-0982
E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NORA BERENICE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SCHULTE HOSPITALITY GROUP,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CU24-06337, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Solano, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 7, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-01265 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime compensation,
failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit
rest breaks, failure to indemnify necessary business expenses,
failure to timely pay final wages at termination, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and unfair competition.
Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. is a hospitality company based in
Kentucky. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
David R. Comfort, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
Email: mgolper@brgslaw.com
dcomfort@brgslaw.com
SECOND NATURE: Bid to Junk Best Prior Class Cert Bid Tossed as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEST, et al., v. SECOND
NATURE BRANDS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01799 (D.D.C., Filed
June 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jia M. Cobb entered an order that
the Defendants' prior motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' prior
class certification motion are denied moot.
The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other
Personal Property Damage.[CC]
SECURITY BENEFIT: Bid for Schedule Extensions Tossed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLINTON v. SECURITY
BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:20-cv-04038 (D. Kan.,
Filed July 22, 2020), the Hon. Judge Holly L. Teeter entered an
order denying without prejudice joint motion for schedule
extensions.
-- The Court denied without prejudice a prior request for a 90-day
extension to the current case schedule and required that "any
motion seeking further extensions must include a firm plan to
complete discovery within the newly proposed timeframe,
including
firm dates for supplementations and firm dates for depositions
--
not a firm date on which the parties will begin discussions
about
deposition scheduling."
-- Moreover, it proposes a schedule that the Court finds
unworkable
in light of the substantial delays in completing discovery,
namely
that fact discovery will continue for another full year.
-- The motion shall list any additionally anticipated fact
depositions and the parties' efforts to schedule these
depositions. To avoid the risk of future delays to the class
certification briefing, any renewed motion must propose a
schedule
that contemplates all party depositions being completed prior
the
deadline for filing a motion for class certification, which is
not
an invitation to request an even lengthier extension to the
class
certification deadline.
-- Additionally, any Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice for Defendant
must be served in advance of the filing of a renewed motion to
ensure the parties have time to confer in good faith regarding
the
notice and complete the 30(b)(6) deposition in advance of the
class certification deadline.
The nature of suit states insurance contract.
Security provides insurance services. The Company offers life and
health insurance, retirement plans, annuities, and mutual
funds.[CC]
SEE TICKETS: Starts Payment Notification for Class Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hallas, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that See
Tickets customers have eight days to see if they benefit from the
ticketing service’s multimillion-dollar settlement to resolve
claims that it failed to protect sensitive consumer information
from hackers last year.
The data breach lawsuit alleged that See Tickets, which sells
tickets to roughly 20 million people a year, violated its account
terms by failing to keep hackers from stealing payment card
information. See Tickets agreed to the $3.25 million settlement
without admitting to being at fault.
Thousands of concertgoers could now be eligible to receive payments
and reimbursements for up to over $7,000 for identity theft, fraud,
and extraordinary losses from See Ticket.
Eligible class members could receive up to $2,000 for expenses such
as bank fees, communication charges, and travel costs. They could
also be eligible to receive up to $5,000 from the $3.25 million
settlement for extraordinary losses.
In order to receive a piece of the settlement, customers must file
a valid claim form by Oct. 20. Class members must also provide
proof of their losses, which include account statements, credit
reports, tax documents, and police reports.
The news comes after See Tickets reported a data breach after they
were targeted in a recent cybersecurity attack, per the attorney
general of Maine. The ticket services company reported finding
unusual activity in some of its e-commerce websites last May. [GN]
SHOPTIQUES INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Riley Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOPTIQUES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-07566 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 6, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.shoptiques.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Shoptiques, Inc. provides clothing products. The Company offers
boutiques, clothing, shoes, accessories, men, kids, and gift
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
STEP2 COMPANY: Fails to Pay Wages Under FLSA, OMFWSA, Overby Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSLYN OVERBY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE STEP2 COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01753-BYP
(N.D. Ohio, Oct. 9, 2024) is a collective action alleging that
Defendant's failed to include bonuses and shift premiums earned by
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees in their
regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating their overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a
"class action" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to remedy violations
of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.
The Defendant allegedly classified the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated manufacturing/production employees as non-exempt
employees. As a result of Defendant's practices and policies, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing/production
employees have been damaged in that they have not received wages
due to them pursuant to the FLSA and OMFWSA.
The Plaintiff and other similarly situated manufacturing/production
employees frequently worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendant between Nov. 5, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2024
as a production/manufacturing employee at its Streetsboro, Ohio
manufacturing/production facility.
Step2 is an American manufacturer of preschool and toddler toys and
rotational molder of plastics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Bldg., Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
STERLING METS: Violates Biometric Privacy Law, Dowling Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Journal reports that the company that owns the New York
Mets professional baseball team is the target of a class action
lawsuit alleging the organization collects and profits from fans'
biometric information at its stadium, CitiField, in violation of
the city's biometrics privacy law.
The lead plaintiff, Chris Dowling, a Mets fan and New York
resident, claims Sterling Mets, the owner of the team and the
stadium, uses facial recognition technology to collect biometric
identifier information and profits from the information to the
detriment of consumers.
The lawsuit alleges the team violates the New York City Biometrics
Privacy Law that was passed in 2021. Under the law, it is unlawful
to "sell, lease, trade, share in exchange for anything of value or
otherwise profit from the transaction of biometric identifier
information."
In addition to facial recognition images, biometric identifiers
include traditional fingerprints, palm prints, and iris/retinal
scans, and are unique to each person. The complaint likens the
situation to taking a person's social security or credit card
number without their consent, but individuals cannot be separated
from their biometric consumer information. Biometric identifiers
cannot be replaced like a stolen credit card.
The complaint alleges that the Mets organization profits in two
ways: by increasing its profit margin by using facial recognition
as opposed to using manual labor to protect its 400,000 square foot
premises and by selling tickets for baseball games and concerts at
a premium price that customers would not have paid if they had
known the price included the "surreptitious collection of their
biometrics."
Dowling, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is
suing under the law's private right of action for the "negligent,
reckless, or intentional violation of the statute." The law calls
for damages of $5,000 for each intentional or reckless violation of
the statute. The class action also seeks attorneys' fees and costs,
and injunctive relief.
The exact class size of customers affected is unknown but consists
of more than 100,000 individuals, according to the filing.
The complaint cites CitField photos, a security magazine article
that says there are 11 cameras at the ballpark's main entrance, and
social media posts from two individuals who say they experienced
the use of the technology at CitiField.
The Mets organization has had the case removed from state court to
the Eastern District of New York federal court but has not yet
answered the allegations.
The team has reached the National League Championship Series for
the first time in nine years by beating the rival Philadelphia
Phillies. [GN]
STRATEGIC DELIVERY: Bid to Transfer Bernard Class Suit Terminated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNARD et al v. STRATEGIC
DELIVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-07396 (D.N.J., Filed Dec.
19, 2022), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order
that the motion to transfer is administratively terminated pending
the resolution of the Motion for Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint in the Southern District of New York.
-- Briefing on the Motions to Certify Class shall continue.
-- The Parties shall notify the Court when there is a decision, at
which time the Clerk of Court will reinstate the Motion to
Transfer.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Strategic Delivery is a logistics and supply chain, freight &
logistics services, and logistics company located in Clark, New
Jersey.[CC]
SYNCHRONY BANK: Parties Must Submit Amended Joint Initial Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBBIE RUNZI, v. SYNCHRONY
BANK, Case No. 3:23-cv-00129-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Timothy
Batten, Sr. entered an order that discovery will be bifurcated into
class certification discovery and, if a class is certified,
followed by class merits and remedies discovery.
-- The parties are directed to confer and prepare and submit an
amended joint preliminary report and discovery plan with
proposed
dates by which each phase of discovery shall be completed.
-- The Court recognizes the possibility that some discovery
disputes
could arise and some individual and class discovery could
overlap,
but it determines that the benefits to bifurcation outweigh
those
risks.
-- The case is in its early stages, the first round of discovery
could dispose of the class claims or result in a narrowed
class,
and the principles of judicial economy warrant bifurcation of
discovery.
The case comes before the Court on Defendant Synchrony Bank’s
request to bifurcate discovery into class certification discovery
and, if a class is certified, class merits and remedies discovery.
Synchrony provides a wide range of specialized financing programs,
as well as innovative consumer banking products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JZVq45 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEAM DISCOVERY: Class Fact Discovery in Jackson Due Sept. 26, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ACACSHA JACKSON,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TEAM
DISCOVERY, LLC, LAURENCE TRIMBLE, and TREVOR TRIMBLE, Case No.
2:24-cv-00399-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Brett Ludwig entered
scheduling order as follows:
1. The parties' initial disclosures as Sept. 27, 2024
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)
must be exchanged on or before:
2. Amendments to the pleadings may be Oct. 14, 2024
filed without leave of Court on or
before:
3. All fact discovery must be completed Sept. 26, 2025
no later than:
4. Motions for conditional certification Jan. 24, 2025
of a collective action shall be
served and filed on or before:
5. Motions for class certification and June 27, 2025
motions to decertify a collective
action shall be served and filed
on or before:
6. Motions for summary judgment must Oct. 24, 2025
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56,
Civil L.R. 56 and Civil L.R. 7 and
shall be served and filed on or
before:
Team Discovery offers residents memory care and assisted living.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gy9k7s at no extra
charge.[CC]
THANG BOTANICALS: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Product Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
M.A., A.S., N.A., and J.R., individually on behalf of themselves
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THANG
BOTANICALS, INC., and FTLS HOLDINGS LLC, collectively doing
business as 7ΩHMZ, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-07029 (N.D. Cal., October 7, 2024) arises from Defendants'
alleged false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices
regarding their 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) tablet products.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally
failed to disclose the material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH
consumption anywhere on its 7-OH Tablets' labeling, packaging, or
marketing material. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek relief in their
action individually, and as a class action, on behalf of similarly
situated purchasers of Defendants' Products, for the following
violations of: (i) California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii)
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; (iii) California's False
Advertising Law; (iv) Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; (v)
Nevada's Deceptive Trade Practices Act; (vi) breach of implied
warranty; (vii) unjust enrichment; and (viii) fraud by omission.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Thang Botanicals, Inc. owns and
operates the 7-OHMZ website, www.7ohmz.com, and also advertises,
markets, distributes, and sells its 7-OHMZ Products in California,
Oregon, Nevada, and throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
THRYV INC: Jackson Class Suit Removed to N.D. W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled MICHAEL JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THRYV, INC., Defendant,
Case No. CC-04-2024-C-39, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Braxton County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia on October 7, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00096-TSK to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged violations of the West
Virginia Code's Section 5A-8-24(e) in connection with unlawful
disclosure of the home addresses and unpublished home or personal
telephone numbers of thousands of West Virginia's active, formerly
active, or retired judicial officers, prosecutors, federal or
state public defenders, federal or state assistant public
defenders, and law-enforcement officers.
Headquartered in Texas, Thryv, Inc. provides customer relationship
management and online reputation management software to small
businesses. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher L. Bauer, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 747-1900
Facsimile: (202) 747-1901
E-mail: cbauer@sheppardmullin.com
- and -
Dwight M. Francis, Esq.
Aimee C. Oleson, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, 20th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 391-7400
Facsimile: (469) 391-7401
E-mail: dfrancis@sheppardmullin.com
aoleson@sheppardmullin.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Blake Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kimberly Blake, Lamibia Dunham, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC,
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04973 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00124-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric Marc Poulin, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
Seth Little, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: eric.poulin@poulinwilley.com
pauld@akimlawfirm.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
- and -
John C. Bohren, Esq.
YANNI LAW APC
145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Fax: (800) 867-6779
Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Scott Carlton, Esq.
Raymond W. Stockstill, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6000
Fax: (213) 627-0705
Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
- and -
James Michael Pearl, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 620-5700
Fax: (310) 620-5899
Email: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Curry Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as James Curry, David Freifeld, on behalf of
themselves and all others who are similarly situated v.
Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-04773 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00123-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
999 North Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 802-1272
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: lvntloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Gary A. Praglin, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
2716 Ocean Park Boulevard Suite 3088
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (310) 392-2008
Fax: (310) 392-0111
Email: gpraglin@cpmlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Scott Carlton, Esq.
Raymond W. Stockstill, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6000
Fax: (213) 627-0705
Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Dickey-Johnson Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Chastine Dickey-Johnson, Serena Chapman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-06940 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on Oct. 9, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00127-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John C. Bohren, Esq.
YANNI LAW APC
145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Fax: (800) 867-6779
Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Phone: (412) 322-9243
Email: Gary@lcllp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Raymond W. Stockstill, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6000
Fax: (213) 627-0705
Email: beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: DuPreez Suit Transferred to D. Montana
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lorie DuPreez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04659 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 9,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00118-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Siobhan Ellen McGreal, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
1600 Market Street Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 679-7058
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: smcgreal@consumerlawfirm.com
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Kyle N. Gurwell, Esq.
360 Consumer Law
7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Phone: (562) 600-9989
Email: kng@lawofficekg.com
The Defendants are represented by:
D. Scott Carlton, Esq.
Raymond W. Stockstill, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6000
Fax: (213) 627-0705
Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
- and -
James Michael Pearl, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 620-5700
Fax: (310) 620-5899
Email: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
TRADE DESK: Faces Gunderson Suit Over Misleading Proxy
------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN GUNDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE TRADE DESK, INC.; JEFF GREEN;
LISE BUYER; ANDREA CUNNINGHAM; KATHRYN FALBERG; GOKUL RAJARAM;
DAVID WELLS; and SAMANTHA JACOBSON, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1029
(Del. Ch., Oct. 4, 2024) is an action seeking an order that (i)
enjoins any stockholder vote on the Reincorporation until the
Director Defendants disclose that the Reincorporation requires
Supermajority Approval and (ii) enjoins the Reincorporation from
closing unless and until Supermajority Approval is obtained.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Reincorporation
will repeal the Company's Delaware charter and replace it with a
Nevada charter that makes substantive changes to each of Article
VI, Article VIII, and Article IX. Yet the Proxy states that the
Reincorporation can be approved by a simple majority vote, which is
false and misleading, says the suit.
The Trade Desk, Inc. is an American multinational technology
company that specializes in real-time programmatic marketing
automation technologies, products, and services, designed to
personalize digital content delivery to users. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew E. Blumberg, Esq.
Daniel E. Meyer, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 364-3600
- and -
Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
- and -
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
- and -
Joel Fleming, Esq.
Lauren Godles Milgroom, Esq.
EQUITY LITIGATION GROUP LLP
101 Arch Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 468-8602
- and -
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (888) 715-1740
TRANS UNION: Oct. 22 Deadline to File Supplemental Brief Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order allowing the Parties to
submit supplemental class certification briefing not to exceed 5
pages each with Plaintiff Valeriano Saucedo’s supplemental brief
due by October 15, 2024 and Defendant Trans Union LLC's
supplemental brief due by October 22, 2024
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Trans Union and Plaintiff
Saucedo jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter an
Order allowing the Parties to submit supplemental class
certification briefing not to exceed 5 pages each with Plaintiff's
supplemental brief due October 15, 2024, and Defendant's
supplemental brief due October 22, 2024.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GdbnUr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Dan Keller, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com
- and -
Michael F. Ram, Esq.
Marie N. Appel, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 846-3862
Facsimile: (415) 358-6923
E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com
mappel@forthepeople.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael O'Neil, Esq.
Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
Kristen A. DeGrande, Esq.
Terence N. Hawley, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 207-1000
E-mail: michael.oneil@reedsmith.com
ahartmann@reedsmith.com
kdegrande@reedsmith.com
thawley@reedsmith.com
TRAVEL RESORTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Chapman Due Feb. 11, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN CHAPMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00251-CCE-JEP
(M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake entered an order
granting the motion to extend class certification deadline:
-- Discovery still closes Feb. 20, 2025
-- The Plaintiff has until Feb. 11, 2025, to file his motion for
class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wHQpL8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"
or the "Company") (NYSE: UPS) between January 30, 2024 and July 22,
2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that Defendants provided investors with
material information concerning UPS' expected revenue and adjusted
operating margin for the fiscal year 2024. The Complaint further
alleges that Defendants' statements included, among other things,
confidence in the Company's volume growth, price discipline, cost
execution, and its overall ability to handle volume variabilities.
According to the Complaint, Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and/or concealing material
adverse facts concerning the true state of UPS' growth; notably,
that it was not truly equipped to handle a surge in volume in
lower-profit services without seeing a significant decline in their
operating margins. According to the Complaint such statements,
absent these material facts, caused Plaintiff and other
shareholders to purchase UPS' securities at artificially inflated
prices.
The Complaint further alleges that the truth emerged on July 23,
2024 when UPS announced its financial results for the second
quarter of fiscal 2024, provided lower-than-expected guidance for
the third quarter, and reduced its margin guidance for the full
fiscal year 2024. The Complaint alleges that the Company attributed
its results and lowered guidance on the shift in "U.S. volume mix
both in terms of product and customer segmentation . . . toward
value products."
The Complaint also alleges investors and analysts reacted
immediately to UPS' revelation. The Complaint alleges that the
price of UPS' common stock declined dramatically, from a closing
market price of $145.18 per share on July 22, 2024, to fall to
$127.68 per share on July 23, 2024, a decline of $17.50 per share,
or about 12.05% in the span of just a single day.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of UPS should
contact the Firm prior to the December 9, 2024 lead plaintiff
motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Visit the website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information
about the firm. [GN]
UNITED WHOLESALE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Conspiracy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kingsley of National Mortgage Professional reports that United
Wholesale Mortgage (UWM) and the company's CEO, Mat Ishbia, have
had their motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the RICO Act and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment,
among other claims, denied as moot as of Oct. 3, 2024, due to
plaintiffs' Aug. 30, 2024, submission of an amended complaint.
District Judge McMillion's text-only order means the case continues
at present. UWM must submit a new motion to dismiss if it wishes to
pursue having the case thrown out.
"This Hunterbrook-affiliated lawsuit is a putative class action
that raises a kitchen-sink full of claims against UWM, its holding
companies, and its CEO," read the initial, June 21, 2024, request
for dismissal with prejudice. The defendants, UWM and Ishbia, also
claimed that the class action lawsuit "reflects an unprecedented
and coordinated effort to smear United Wholesale Mortgage, LLC
("UWM"), its affiliates, and even its CEO -- all of which serves to
benefit market speculators."
The class action lawsuit in question, filed April 2, 2024, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
claims the nation's top wholesale lender holds independent brokers
captive via its "All-In Initiative," thereby overcharging borrowers
by preventing brokers from shopping around for clients. On the same
day the lawsuit was filed, venture capital-backed news outlet,
Hunterbrook Media, released an expose examining similar
allegations.
UWM and Ishbia's request for dismissal also argued that the
plaintiffs' allegations under RESPA are time-barred, and the
complaint fails to state a claim under that statute in any event.
The lender also argued that the RICO claims fail for lack of
proximate causation, absence of a cognizable enterprise, and
failure to plead predicate acts of racketeering.
In 2021, UWM issued an ultimatum to all of its broker partners
stating they can either choose to do business with UWM or their
rivals, Rocket Pro TPO and Fairway Independent Mortgage, but cannot
continue to do business with both. Since the ultimatum was issued,
a number of lawsuits have been filed between brokers and UWM for
allegedly violating the ultimatum.
In late September, a Florida federal court dismissed a separate
antitrust case alleging UWM and Mat Ishbia conspired with brokers
to mount a group boycott of Rocket Mortgage and Fairway Independent
Mortgage Corporation, filed in 2021 by the Florida-based Okavage
Group after the Pontiac, Michigan-based UWM announced its "All In"
initiative. [GN]
VERISOURCE SERVICES: Clarke Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Payson Clarke and Stacey Sanchez, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Verisource Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
2024-58710, was removed from the County of Harris, District Court
of Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on October 1, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Texas assigned Case
No. 4:24-cv-03719 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that Plaintiffs and Class Members had their
sensitive information exposed after an unknown actor accessed
Defendants' systems. The Plaintiffs assert causes of action for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive
judgment.
Verisource Services, Inc. is an employee benefits data
administrative services company headquartered in Houston,
Texas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Amanda N. Harvey, Esq.
Kayleigh J. Watson, Esq.
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC
1452 Hughes Rd Suite 200
Grapevine, TX 76051
Telephone: (267) 930-1697
Facsimile: (267) 930-4771
E-mail: aharvey@mullen.law
kwatson@mullen.law
VGW HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Local Gambling Laws
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McLoughlin of gamingamerica.com reports that sweepstakes
casino operator VGW has been hit with a class-action lawsuit in the
state of Mississippi.
This lawsuit has been put forward alleging that VGW's sites are in
breach of the local gambling laws of the Magnolia State. VGW
develops games on platforms including Luckyland Slots, Chumba
Casino and Global Poker.
This case in Mississippi now takes the total number of federal
lawsuits against VGW to 11, though it has been reported that it
successfully removed the case to federal court.
This news comes after VGW appealed a Tennessee federal court's
decision to remand nine qui tam lawsuits back to state court. The
plaintiffs in these cases, who are suing individually, aim to
recover gambling losses, claiming that VGW's sweepstakes games are
illegal.
Sweepstakes have come under the light within the industry as of
late. For example, the American Gaming Association (AGA) recently
sent out a memo to operators regarding the potential harm of
sweepstakes gaming for consumers.
The memo stated that offshore sportsbooks and online casinos have
ignored the laws and regulations put into place to ensure
responsible gaming.
Meanwhile, the Social and Promotional Gaming Association (SPGA) was
launched last month to advocate for responsible operations of
sweepstakes games and to provide stakeholder information. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***