/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241018.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 210 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Dunlavey Suit Removed to C.D. California 4212 28ST DE: Collects Illegal Rent Charges, Aveni Says AETNA LIFE: Class Settlement in Goidel Suit Gets Initial Nod AFTERSHOKZ LLC: Conohan Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 AT&T INC: Schulte Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Montana BROADBAND OF INDIANA: Ince Suit Seeks Lineman's OT Wage Under FLSA BROTHERS BAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fiorito Suit Says C2 EDUCATIONAL: Moody's Bid to Retroactively Extend Deadline Tossed CAREDX INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 14, 2025 CENSIS TECHNOLOGIES: Spaeth Sues Over Employees' Compromised Info CIRCANA LLC: Grigg Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments COLUMBUS FAMILY: FLSA Settlement Deal Gets Approval COMMUNITY CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kaiwi Alleges CONDOR FLUGDIENST: Lizzapi Sues Over Damaged Luggage, Camera CONSUMER CELLULAR: Court Stays Morris Class Status Bid COX AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Touch Gets Initial Nod CSL PLASMA: Jacob Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. Calif. CUEVAS SIGNS: Giraldo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation DAVIDSTEA (USA) INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Says DELINEA INC: Koeller Must File Response to Class Cert. Denial Bid DELTA DENTAL: Feeler Sues Over Data Privacy Violations DOCUSIGN INC: Nov. 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set EARLY WARNING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says ERICSSON INC: Non-Exempt Employees Win Class Status FEDERAL EXPRESS: Gillyard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Gluck Sues Over Unprotected Network FIRST TECH: Settlement Deal in Perez Suit Gets Initial OK FOCUS SOLUTIONS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium FORTIVE CORPORATION: Dudley Sues Over Data Breach FREMONT COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FURNITURE MART: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website FUTURES EXPLORED: Hassler Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal. HAMILTON COLLEGE: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HAPPY HIPPO: Deceptively Sells Loose Powder Products, L.S. Says HATCH BABY INC: Bott Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Labels HOLISTIX TREATMENT: Sued Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data HWOLVES GLOBAL: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Access to Website HYUNDAI MOTOR: Breedlove Sues Over Defective Braking Systems INSURANCE AGENCY: Lovell Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info INSURANCE AGENCY: Moore Suit Alleges Unprotected Personal Info ISS ACTION: Vazquez Labor Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to S.D. Calif. JAMO 31: Expert Discovery in Kim Suit Due Dec. 30 JAYA APPAREL: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JOHN PAUL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Erickson Alleges Toxic Chemicals in Baby Wipes KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Class of Workers LAMBSBREATH LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Robles Says LINCOLN COUNTY, TN: Logan Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed LINKEDIN CORP: $6.625MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 14 LIVE NATION: Gordon Legal Investigates Dynamic Ticket Pricing LOS ANGELES, CA: Electronically Filed Docs in Griffin Stricken LUSH HANDMADE: Keskinen Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. MELINDA DERUS: Bartz Loses Class Certification Bid MICROGENICS CORP: Court to Consider Summary Judgment Bids MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Faulkner Says NATIONAL GENERAL: King Loses Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice NATIONAL GENERAL: Parties Must Re-file Materials NATIONAL LUTHERAN: Chittum Sues Over Unpaid Overtime NATURE'S PATH: Mislabels Panda Puffs Cereals, Rutledge Says NEW YORK: Commissioner Sued Over Right to Purchase Firearms OLIVIA ROSE: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ONE JEANSWEAR: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. PESI INC: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Manza Says PILOT SERVICES: Bagley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PLANT TRANSIT: Bowen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation PRESIDIO BRANDS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Sues Over False Aneuploidy Genetic Testing PUBLIX SUPER: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property RIO TINTO: Initial Hearing in Mining Disaster Class Suit Starts ROCKETREACH LLC: Misappropriates Consumers' Info, Sant Suit Claims SAKS & COMPANY: Kyungjo Balks at Fake Advertised "Sale" Prices SHANE HILL: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistants' OT Wages, Irvin Says SHOUT! FACTORY: Discloses Info to Third Parties, McGrath Says STEPHEN EHRLICH: Class Settlement in Roberts Gets Final Nod STOP & SHOP: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class SUGOI GLOBAL: Suarez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store TASKUS INC: Parties in Lozada Must Submit Class Cert Exhibits TEA SPOT: Karim Seeks Equal Website Access to Blind Users TICKETMASTER LLC: Anderson Suit Transferred to D. Montana TRAILS ACADEMY: Sued Over Negligent Misrepresentations TRANS UNION: Supplemental Brief Filing Due Oct. 22 TREASURY WINE: Settles Securities Class Action for $65-Mil. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: $189MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 UBISOFT INC: Fails to Protect Subscribers' Info, Lakes Says URBAN INTELLIGENCE: Asencio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages VIRTUE LABS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Wright Suit Over Defective Braking System WELLS FARGO: Brickman Investments Sues Over Unlawful Conduct [*] Court Approves Class Settlement on Car Dealers Hidden Fees [24]7.AI INC: Jarrett Suit Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon to Pay $24.4MM to Mesothelioma Victim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cimbar Performance Loses $39MM Mesothelioma Case ********* 3M COMPANY: Dunlavey Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jason Dunlavey, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of David L. Dunlavey, Deceased; Eric Dunlavey, an Individual; Todd Dunlavey, an Individual and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY; ALLIED REFRIGERATION INC.; CALAVERAS ASBESTOS, LTD.; CANVAS CT, LLC (f/k/a SPX COOLING TECHNOLOGIES INC., sii to MARLEY COOLING TOWER); CARRIER CORPORATION; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.; COPELAND CORPORATION LLC; FAMILIAN CORP (sii to FAMILIAN PIPE & SUPPLY); FLUOR CORPORATION; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC.; GRINNELL LLC (d/b/a GRINNELL CORP.); GOULDS PUMPS LLC (f/k/a GOULDS PUMPS INC.); HAJOCA CORPORATION; HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC.; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KLINGER GPI — GASKETS AND PACKING, INC. (aka KLINGER GPI); METALCLAD INSULATION LLC (fka METALCLAD INSULATION CORPORATION); METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY; NIBCO INC.; PARAMOUNT GLOBAL (f/k/a VIACOMCBS INC., Vida CBS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, f/k/a VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION); PARSONS CONSTRUCTION GROUP INC.; REDCO CORPORATION (f/k/a CRANE CO.); SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; UNITED REFRIGERATION, INC. (Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Thermal Products, Inc.); WARREN PUMPS LLC (f/k/a WARREN PUMPS INC.); YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (dba York Heating and Air Conditioning); and DOES 1-250, Case No. JCCP 4675 / 24STCV19461 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 10, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08746. The Complaint alleges that Decedent David L. Dunlavey developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from several Defendants' asbestos containing products.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: P.M. Bessette, Esq. Michele C. Barnes, Esq. DEMLER, ARMSTRONG & ROWLAND, LLP 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 949-1900 Facsimile: (415) 354-8380 Email: bes@darlaw.com mcb@darlaw.com 4212 28ST DE: Collects Illegal Rent Charges, Aveni Says ------------------------------------------------------- MORGAN AVENI, USHA REVANKAR and BRANDON PERDUE, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 4212 28ST DE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 720811/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Queens Cty., October 3, 2024) alleges that Defendant has evaded the 421-a Program's requirements and governing rent stabilization laws via the improper use of "concessions." Defendant 4212 28ST DE LLC is the owner-in-fee of the apartment building located at 42-12 28th Street in Queens. The Building participates in the 421-a Program, which requires landlords to register their units with the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, and that those apartments be treated as rent-stabilized. According to the complaint, while Defendant provided the Building's initial tenants, including Plaintiffs, with purportedly temporary rent concessions, it failed to reflect those concessions on the Building's initial registrations with the DHCR. By manipulating the way they assessed a unit's rent, the Defendant was able to register a unit with at higher initial rent than what was actually charged, and all subsequent increases, such as vacancy increases and Rent Guidelines Board increases, were based off that higher, impermissible figure, says the suit. 4212 28ST DE LLC is a Delaware corporation which is the Building's fee owner.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq. Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq. NEWMAN FERRARA LLP 1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 619-5400 E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com rsachar@nfllp.com AETNA LIFE: Class Settlement in Goidel Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMA GOIDEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-07619-VSB-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pending the Final Approval Hearing, all deadlines in this action save those set out in this Opinion & Order and in the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Directing Notice to Class Members, and Scheduling a Fairness Hearing, for the purpose of executing the Settlement are stayed. The class action was filed on Sept. 13, 2021, on behalf of a class of LGBTQ1 individuals insured by Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna") who want to have children but cannot conceive through sexual intercourse with their partners, and can become pregnant only with medical assistance, such as fertility treatments like intrauterine insemination ("IUI") and in vitro fertilization ("IVF"). The Plaintiffs allege that Aetna's policies require LGBTQ individuals Aetna insures to pay out-of-pocket for several rounds of fertility treatments before insurance will pay for treatment. Non-LGBTQ individuals that Aetna insures, however, do not need to pay out-of-pocket for fertility treatment; Aetna will pay for non-LGBTQ fertility treatment immediately upon representation that the insured has not been able to conceive naturally in the past year. The Plaintiffs allege that this difference in treatment is unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"), the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). The Plaintiffs are a class of individuals who want to have children but cannot conceive through sexual intercourse with their partners, and rather can become pregnant only with medical assistance, such as fertility treatments like intrauterine insemination ('IUI') and in vitro fertilization ('IVF'). Plaintiffs propose two classes as part of the settlement agreement: One "'Injunctive Settlement Class,' is defined as all individuals in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship , who are currently covered by a health plan provided or administered by Aetna in New York, and who currently or will in the future want to obtain coverage for IUI or IVF treatments." The other proposed class—the "Damages Settlement Class"—consists of individuals in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship with an Aetna insurance plan that covered infertility treatments during the class period,3 but that had to pay out-of-pocket for rounds of IUI or IVF because of the way Aetna defined "infertility." Aetna provides insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGqegF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zoe Antonia Salzman, Esq. Debra Lea Greenberger, Esq. Eric Abrams, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP New York, NY - and - Alison Ann Tanner, Esq. Donya Khadem, Esq. Michelle Iris Banker, Esq. Sudria H Twyman, Esq. Noel Leon, Esq. NATIONAL WOMEN'S LAW CENTER Washington, DC The Defendant is represented by: Earl B. Austin, Esq. Sarah Reeves, Esq. BAKER BOTTS LLP New York, NY and Dallas, TX - and - Mariellen Dugan, Esq. CALCAGNI & KANEFSKY LLP Newark, NJ AFTERSHOKZ LLC: Conohan Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CONOHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v. AFTERSHOKZ, LLC, a Texas limited liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive Case No. 2024CUMC025257 (Filed Sept. 11, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2024. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08786 to the proceeding. The suit alleges that the Defendant has violated California Penal Code section 638.51, and that a violation occurs each time a user visits the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff seeks to represent class members within the State of California who visited Defendant's website, www.shokz.com, within the statute of limitations period or, in the alternative, class members within California whose information was sent to TikTok by Defendant's website through the TikTok Software within the statute of limitations period. AfterShokz brings patented bone conduction technology to sport, mobile, and Bluetooth headphones for everyday use. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. Alyssa Sones, Esq. Kevin Murphy, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com jramsey@sheppardmullin.com asones@sheppardmullin.com kemurphy@sheppardmullin.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jasibel Canchola et al., v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order granting in part and denying in part applications to file documents under seal. -- In light of the additional time needed to rule on the parties' sealing applications, the court continues the in-person hearings on the Motion for Class Certification and the Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Dr. Paul Oyer, from October 31, 2024, to November 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10D. -- The Defendant is directed to have Dr. Paul Oyer present and available for questioning during the in-person hearing on the Motion to Exclude on November 7, 2024, in Courtroom 10D. -- The court also directed Plaintiff to file the Motion for Class Certification as a separate document no later than Oct. 30, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mg0UHv at no extra charge.[CC] AT&T INC: Schulte Consumer Suit Moved From D.N.J. to D. Montana --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled CHRIS SCHULTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T INC. and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-07818, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on October 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the District of Montana assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00112-BMM to the proceeding. The case arises from AT&T's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems following a data breach in 2024. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and breach of contract. AT&T Inc. is a telecommunications company, with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. AT&T Mobility LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., with its principal place of business in Brookhaven, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Serina M. Vash, Esq. HERMAN JONES LLP 153 Central Avenue #131 Westfield, NJ 07090 Telephone: (862) 250-3930 Email: svash@hermanjones.com - and - John C. Herman, Esq. 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 504-6500 Facsimile: (404) 504-6501 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com BROADBAND OF INDIANA: Ince Suit Seeks Lineman's OT Wage Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONALD H. INCE, individually, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated current and former employees, v. BROADBAND OF INDIANA, LLC and DOUG MUENCH, individually, Case No. 3:24-cv-01214 (M.D. Tenn., Oct. 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid on-call time and other overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid communications lineman, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges that the Plaintiff and those similarly situated were required to respond immediately to each "on call." If they failed to respond timely, they were subject to disciplinary action. Consequently, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated had no freedom to carry-on with their regular life activities while on "on call" status. (They did not have sufficient time to attend church services, sporting events, movies or concerts, or to visit family members and friends during their "on call" time.) The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed the "on call" times assigned to them by the Defendants but were not compensated for their "on call" overtime at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all times material, the suit contends. In addition, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed job duties, and/or were not fully relieved from their job duties, during 30-minute unpaid meal breaks. As a result, they were not paid overtime compensation for such 30-minute unpaid meal periods at the applicable FLSA overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods, says the suit. Mr. Ince, was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid communications lineman. Broadband provides fiber network construction services in the Central Midwest Region of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Joshua Autry, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com jholt@jsyc.com jautry@jsyc.com BROTHERS BAR: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Fiorito Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fiorito for himself and on behalf of the Rochester Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Brothers Bar and Grill also known as Smoot Family Ventures LLC, unknown insurance company that insures the premises, Case No. 0:24-cv-03883-ECT-SGE (D. Minn, Oct. 10, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct and maintain its Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and the Class and other blind or visually-impaired people. On July 3, 2024, the Plaintiff Fiorito was attempting to analyze the Defendant's website to glean information from them in order to offer them an opportunity to place ads in his employer's circulars and direct mailers. At that time, the Plaintiff Fiorito could not read most of the website due to his problems with contrast and double vision. Mr. Fiorito could not find a way to enlarge the Defendants Website screen, the suit alleges. As a result, Mr. Fiorito could not do his job that day and on other days, as he was unable to obtain information about the Defendants business from their website due to its inaccessibility. 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 the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination. Plaintiff Fiorito, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Named Plaintiff seeks an immediate and permanent injunction to cause the Defendant to change their corporate policies, practices and procedures so that their website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Fiorito suffers from severe traumatic brain injury and macular degeneration and other serious vision problems and resides in Bloomington Minnesota. Brothers is a modernized bar and restaurant throwback to the old Midwestern corner tavern.[BN] C2 EDUCATIONAL: Moody's Bid to Retroactively Extend Deadline Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dino Moody, v. C2 Educational Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04249-RGK-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying the Plaintiff's request to retroactively extend that deadline. -- Having found that the Plaintiff failed to timely file a motion for class certification required for CAFA jurisdiction. C2 Educational is a provider of online tutoring programs intended for kindergarten to intermediate students. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XQeeoU at no extra charge.[CC] CAREDX INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 14, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION #295 PENSION FUND, et al., v. CAREDX, INC., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03023-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a revised case management and scheduling order as follows: 1. Trial Date: Feb. 9, 2026, 8:30 a.m. 2. Final Pretrial Conference: January 8, 2026, 3:00 p.m. 3. Joint pretrial statement (including objections): Dec. 11, 2025 4. Dispositive Motions: Last day to file dispositive motions: July 8, 2025 5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Feb. 21, 2025 6. Class Certification: Motion by Feb. 14, 2025 Opposition by March 14, 2025 Reply by April 4, 2025 Hearing on April 15, 2025, 2:00 p.m. 7. ADR: Completed by Feb. 28, 2025 8. Last Day to Amend Pleading: Oct. 18, 2024 (TAC Due) 9. Motion to Dismiss: Motion or Answer by Nov. 15, 2024 Opposition by Dec. 13, 2024 Reply by Jan. 10, 2025 Hearing on Jan. 28, 2025, 2:00 p.m. CareDx is a precision medicine solutions company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of clinically differentiated, high-value healthcare solutions for transplant patients and caregivers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RBML6N at no extra charge.[CC] CENSIS TECHNOLOGIES: Spaeth Sues Over Employees' Compromised Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SPAETH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENSIS TECHNOLOGIES INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01205 (M.D. Tenn., October 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees stored within its network systems following a data breach between January 25, 2023, and November 6, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Censis Technologies Inc. is a company that specializes in surgical instrument inventory management, headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 32703 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and – Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and – Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com CIRCANA LLC: Grigg Sues to Recover Delinquent Wage Payments ----------------------------------------------------------- Emma Grigg, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CIRCANA, LLC & FIELD AUDIT SERVICES TEAM, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07697 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought pursuant to New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover damages for delinquent wage payments made to workers who qualify as manual workers and who were employed at any time by Defendants. The Defendants have compensated all their employees on a bi-weekly (every other week) basis, regardless of whether said employees qualified as manual workers under the NYLL. The Defendants were at no time during the Relevant Period authorized by the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner to compensate their employees who qualified as manual workers on a bi-weekly basis, in contravention of NYLL, which requires that without explicit authorization from the Commissioner, such workers must be compensated not less frequently than on a weekly basis. The Plaintiff was compensated every other week, rather than weekly, by Defendant throughout the entirety of her employment during the Relevant Period. Thus, for the first half of each bi-weekly pay period, Plaintiff was injured in that she was temporarily deprived of money owed to her, and she could not save, invest, earn interest on, or otherwise use these monies that were rightfully hers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, non-administrative hourly worker. CIRCANA, LLC is a foreign business entity organized under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 COLUMBUS FAMILY: FLSA Settlement Deal Gets Approval ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY MORRISON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH CARE LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-03460-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. entered an order that: 1. Grants the parties' revised joint motion for approval of FLSA Settlement Agreement; 2. Approves Plaintiffs' Counsels' request for fees and costs; 3. Approves the individual settlement payments to Plaintiffs; and 4. Dismisses this case with prejudice. The clerk is directed to enter judgment and close the case. A. The Proposed Individual Settlement Payments The proposed gross settlement amount is $29,287.19. The Settlement Agreement provides individual settlement payments to Plaintiffs as follows: -- Mary Morrison, $3,858.11; -- Tammy Patterson, $709.85; -- Osnat Elbasel, $24.00; Marsha -- Pickelsimer, $4,007.75; and -- Alisha Pickelsimer, $1,645.60. Each Plaintiff will receive her settlement payment divided equally between two checks, "one as a payment for wages, less all applicable withholdings, for which an IRS Form W-2 will be issued, and the other payment for liquidated damages, which will have no withholdings and for which an IRS Form 1099 will be issued." Only four plaintiffs opted in to this collective, which contributed to the larger-than-usual fee award percentage of the total settlement fund. Nor does Defendant oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's request. Thus, the Court awards Plaintiffs' counsel $18,500.00 in fees. Finally, Plaintiffs' counsel seeks $541.88 in expenses, including filing fees and postage. The Court finds the request to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiffs' counsel $541.88 in expenses. The Plaintiff Mary Morrison brought this action in Sept. 2022, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to properly pay its Home Health Aides ("HHA")—including Plaintiff—overtime compensation for time the HHAs spent traveling between clients. Columbus Family provides home healthcare services throughout Columbus, Ohio and the surrounding areas. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSn3Li at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNITY CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kaiwi Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- HELENE KAIWI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI, INC. d/b/a MALAMA I KE OLA HEALTH CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00440-JAO-WRP (D. Hawa., Oct. 8, 2024) is a class action lawsuit arising from the recent May 4 and May 7, 2024, data breach (the "Data Breach") of the Defendant's computer network that resulted in unauthorized access to its members' sensitive personal data. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that as a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members had their sensitive personal information accessed, exfiltrated, and stolen, causing them to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. As a result of the Data Breach, Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of financial fraud and identity theft. Class Members, including Daughter, must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Community Clinic of Maui, Inc. d/b/a MALAMA I KE OLA HEALTH CENTER provides comprehensive primary care medical, dental, health and prenatal services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Klein, Esq. Kurt W. Klein, Esq. David A. Robyak, Esq. James M. Yuda, Esq. Jason W. Jutz, Esq. Mallorie C. Aiwohi, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP LLLC Waterfront Plaza Suite 3-480 500 Ala Moana Boulevard Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8822 Email: rgk@kleinlg.com kwk@kleinlg.com dar@kleinlg.com jmy@kleinlg.com, jwj@kleinlg.com mca@kleinlg.com - and - Terence R. Coates Dylan J. Gould Spencer D. Campbell MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com scampbell@msdlegal.com CONDOR FLUGDIENST: Lizzapi Sues Over Damaged Luggage, Camera ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEX LIN APPI, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONDOR FLUGDIENST GMBH, d/b/a CONDOR AIRLINES, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23839-RAR (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2024) is a class action complaint seeking relief for the systematic and unlawful practices of Defendant, in their handling of damaged and/or lost luggage and damaged and/or lost camera. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated passengers, seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the Montreal Convention, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and 14 CFR Title 14, including the improper denial or reduction of compensation through the unlawful use of deceptive practices, arbitrary depreciation and fees and the refusal to compensate passengers based on the replacement and restitution value of their damaged and/or lost luggage and its contents. Condor Flugdienst GmbH, doing business as Condor Airlines, operates as a leisure airlines. The Company provides passenger flights, and fleet of aircrafts for short, medium, and long haul flights, as well as training for pilots, and shuttle services. Condor Flugdienst serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff, of Miami Beach, Florida, appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Anita M. Mosner, Esq. Benjamin T. Slocum, Esq. Marina V. O'Brien, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 800 17th Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 419-2604 Facsimile: (202) 955-5564 E-mail: anita.mosnergsklaw.com CONSUMER CELLULAR: Court Stays Morris Class Status Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morris v. Consumer Cellular Incorporated, Case No. 2:24-cv-01112 (E.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to stay his motion for class certification and for relief from the local rules setting an automatic briefing schedule. -- For administrative purposes only, the court terminates the plaintiff's motion for class certification and to appoint a class representative and class counsel. -- The court stays briefing on the plaintiff's class cert motion and will re-set a briefing schedule at the Rule 16 scheduling conference. The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Consumer Cellular is an American postpaid mobile virtual network operator founded by John Marick and Greg Pryor in Portland, Oregon in October 1995.[CC] COX AUTOMOTIVE: Class Settlement in Touch Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMNANG TOUCH, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COX AUTOMOTIVE CORP SVCS., LLC, a limited liability company; COX AUTOMOTIVE MOBILITY SOLUTIONS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-01945-TLN-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy Nunley entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. The Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and is incorporated in full by this reference and made a part of this Order. The Settlement appears to be fair, adequate, and reasonable to the Class. 2. All capitalized terms defined in the Settlement Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this Order. 3. The Settlement falls within the range of reasonableness of a settlement which could ultimately be given final approval by the Court, and appears to be presumptively valid, subject only to any objections that may be raised at the Final Approval Hearing and final approval by this Court. The Court notes that the Defendant has agreed to create a common fund of $150,000.00 to cover (a) settlement payments to Class Members who do not validly opt out; (b) a Class Representative enhancement award of up to $5,000.00 for Class Representative Samnang Touch; (c) Class Counsel's attorneys' fees, not to exceed One Third (1/3) of the Gross Settlement Amount, and actual litigation expenses incurred by Class Counsel, up to $20,000.00; and (d) Settlement Administration Costs of approximately $6,500.00. 4. The Court finds and concludes that the Settlement is the result of arm's-length negotiations between the Parties and a mediation conducted after Class Counsel had adequately investigated Plaintiff's claims and become familiar with their strengths and weaknesses. 5. In accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, the "Class" consists of all current and former California non-exempt employees of Cox Automotive Corporate Services, LLC who, after May 19, 2022, received wage statements showing a total hours figure that did not match the hours worked in the pay period. The Class Period is defined as May 19, 2022, through July 7, 2023. The Court finds and concludes that the Class satisfies all of the requirements for certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3). 6. The Court approves Xpand Legal to perform the duties of the Settlement Administrator as set forth in this Order and the Settlement Agreement. 7. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on May 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. Cox is an automotive services and technology provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkbQBF at no extra charge.[CC] CSL PLASMA: Jacob Suit Removed From State Court to S.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of ARTURO JACOB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CSL PLASMA INC.; and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 24CU006340C) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on October 8, 2024. The clerk of court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01807-H-DEB. The case is assigned to Marilyn L. Huff and referred to Magistrate Daniel E. Butcher. CSL Plasma Inc. operates as a collector of human blood plasma. The Company manufactures life-saving biotherapies. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nima Darouian, Esq. Nalee Xiong, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Telephone: (424) 204-4400 Facsimile: (424) 204-4350 Email: darouiann@ballardspahr.com xiongn@ballardspahr.com CUEVAS SIGNS: Giraldo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Flabio Giraldo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CUEVAS SIGNS CORP, JOSE MIGUEL CUEVA and LUIS FERNANDO CUEVA, Case No. 2:24-cv-09754 (D.N.J., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against Defendants for alleged violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act, ("FLSA") and of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices, seeking to recover unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received an hourly wage of $16 to $18 from July 2022 until April 9, 2024. Despite consistently working 55-60 hours per week, the plaintiff did not receive any overtime compensation. The Defendants willfully and intentionally maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additional compensation, as evidenced by timesheets, employee schedules, and other relevant documentation. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to record all of the time that Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals employed by the Corporate Defendant worked, including the work performed in excess of forty hours each week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a welder and repairer of construction machinery for Defendants' business in New Jersey. CUEVAS SIGNS CORP is a duly organized business corporation under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com DAVIDSTEA (USA) INC: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Karim Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIDSTEA (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07612 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 8, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.davidstea.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. DavidsTea Inc. manufactures non alcoholic beverages. The Company offers juicy red cherry and floral products as well as provides delivery services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com DELINEA INC: Koeller Must File Response to Class Cert. Denial Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD J. KOELLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELINEA INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00394-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Henry Edward Autrey entered an order adjust deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiff shall file a combined response to the Defendant's motions to deny class certification and grant summary judgment by Nov. 1, 2024. -- The Defendant shall reply by Nov. 15, 2024. Delinea operates as a security software solution. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tmwkvn at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA DENTAL: Feeler Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL FEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELTA DENTAL OF ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09637(N.D. Ill., Oct. 7, 2024) is a class action against Delta Dental for violating the Plaintiff's privacy rights by disclosing the Plaintiff's and other Delta Dental plan members' personally identifiable information and non-public personal health information through the use of hidden tracking codes integrated by Delta Dental into Delta Dental's web properties, https://www.deltadentalil.com/ and its healthcare portal https://my.deltadentalcoversme.com/ (the "Websites"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Defendant embeds certain tracking technologies on its Websites—including tracking technologies offered by the social media company LinkedIn and the online advertising company Google—that automatically transmits to the service technology providers (i.e., LinkedIn and Google) confidential details about Delta Dental's plan members. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware that their PII and PHI were being surreptitiously transmitted to LinkedIn and Google as they communicated with their health plan. Delta Dental Plan of California is headquartered in the United States. The company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker services for a range of insurance types. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Suite 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Tel: (561) 849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com DOCUSIGN INC: Nov. 18 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RICHARD R. WESTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. DOCUSIGN, INC., DANIEL D. SPRINGER, MICHAEL J. SHERIDAN, CYNTHIA GAYLOR, and LOREN ALHADEFF, Defendants Case No. 3:22-cv-00824-WHO CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION To: All persons and entities who or which, during the period from June 4, 2020 through June 9, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased the publicly traded common stock of DocuSign, Inc. ("DocuSign") and were damaged thereby (collectively, the "Class" and individually, the "Class Members"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that the above-captioned action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class action on behalf of the Class defined above. Please note: at this time, there is no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. A trial date in the Action has been scheduled for July 13, 2026. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION. A Postcard Notice is currently being mailed to known potential Class Members. If you have not yet received the Postcard Notice, you may obtain a copy of it or a long-form Notice of Pendency of Class Action by downloading them at www.DocuSignSecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the Administrator at: DocuSign Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173081 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (888) 208-1235 info@DocuSignSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notices, may be made to the following representative of Class Counsel: Irina Vasilchenko, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 (888) 219-6877 www.labaton.com If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to remain in the Class or to request exclusion. If you want to remain in the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than retain documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in DocuSign common stock. If you are a Class Member and do not request exclusion, you will stay in the Class and be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present, and future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. You may also be eligible for a future recovery in the Action, if there is one. If you do not wish to remain in the Class, you must take steps now to exclude yourself. If you timely and validly ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by anything that happens in the Action. However, you will not be eligible to receive any money that might be recovered in the future. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than November 18, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the long-form Notice available at www.DocuSignSecuritiesLitigation.com. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion whether to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion from the Class in the event there is a settlement or judgment in the Action. This may be your only opportunity to request exclusion. Further information about the case may be obtained by contacting the Administrator as provided above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: October 1, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court for the Northern District of California EARLY WARNING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hedges Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07593 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://zellepay.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. Early Warning Services, LLC provides fraud management and prevention services. The Company offers services to financial services organizations and other businesses in protecting themselves against fraud. Early Warning Services offers its services throughout the United States. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ERICSSON INC: Non-Exempt Employees Win Class Status ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josue Gutierrez, v. Ericsson Inc., et al. Case No. 5:23-cv-01665-GW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order: -- preliminary certifying the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement defined as: "All persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt employee reporting to a California work location during the Class Period" -- granting the motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement; -- appointing Josue Gutierrez as Class Representative; -- appointing The Wand Law Firm, P.C. as Class Counsel; -- approving the proposed long form notice and concomitant notice plan; and The Court finds that each of the requirements delineated in Rule 23(a) is satisfied for certifying the proposed class for purposes of settlement. Because all requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) are satisfied, the Court concludes that certification of the proposed class is appropriate here. On June 22, 2023, Gutierrez filed suit against Ericsson in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, asserting individual, class, and representative action claims premised on various California Labor Code violations. Gutierrez amended his complaint on September 7, 2023, asserting nine causes of action for: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to provide recovery periods; (4) failure to pay overtime wages; (5) failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting employees; (6) failure to furnish accurate itemized statements; Mr. Gutierrez was employed by Ericsson in a non-exempt position as a Tower Technician from May 2019 to November 2022. Ericsson is a telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1tC9FT at no extra charge.[CC] FEDERAL EXPRESS: Gillyard Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Steffon Gillyard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 24-2-18598-4 KNT was removed from the Superior Court of Washington in King County, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct. 11, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01666. The Complaint asserts, on behalf of a putative class, that FedEx violated Washington's Industrial Welfare Act; the Washington Administrative Code; the Washington Wage Payment Act; and the Washington Wage Rebate Act by: failing to compensate non-exempt hourly employees for missed or untimely ten-minute rest breaks and thirty-minute meal breaks; failing to pay non-exempt hourly employees for "all hours worked"; and failing to pay non-exempt hourly employees "overtime compensation."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gabriella Wagner, Esq. WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-623-4100 Fax: 206-623-9273 Email: wagner@wscd.com FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Gluck Sues Over Unprotected Network --------------------------------------------------------- Yaakov Gluck, Seth Gluck, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS a/k/a FMR LLC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12601-MJJ (D. Mass., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff in a massive and preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. Between August 17th and August 19th, hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information ("Personal Information" or "PII") of thousands of individuals. The PII taken by the hackers includes social security numbers, financial information, names, numbers, and addresses. In short, thanks to Defendant's failure to protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, cyber criminals were able to steal everything they could possibly need to commit nearly every conceivable form of identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of potentially millions of individuals. The Defendant's conduct--failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their computer systems were protected, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the breach, failing to timely detect the breach, failing to disclose the material facts that they did not have adequate computer systems and security practices to safeguard the Personal Information, failing to honor their repeated promises and representations to protect the Breach Victims' Personal Information, caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiffs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Yaakov and Seth Gluck are customers of Fidelity, a company that manages their assets. The Defendant is a provider of investment advisory services and asset management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 400 Sylavn Ave, Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs NJ 07632 Phone: 862-227-3106 Email: ea@zemellawllc.com FIRST TECH: Settlement Deal in Perez Suit Gets Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, v. FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-06704-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order: -- conditionally certifying the proposed class for the purposes of settlement only; -- preliminarily approving the settlement agreement and notice plan (with the additions specified above in Section IV.F); and -- preliminarily appointing the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund as class counsel, Perez as class representative, and RG2 Claims Administration, LLC as settlement administrator. For settlement purposes only, Perez seeks certification of the following Settlement Classes, defined as: (i) the "California Class," consisting of 20 individuals who, according to First Tech’s records, were residing in California and applied for a Residential Secured Loan with First Tech from December 29, 2021 through December 29, 2023, provided an EAD during the application process, and were denied their application solely because of their immigration or citizenship status at the time they applied; and (ii) the "National Class," consisting of 43 individuals who, according to First Tech’s records, were residing in any state of the United States other than California and applied for a Residential Secured Loan with First Tech from December 29, 2021, through December 29, 2023, provided an EAD during the application process, and were denied their application solely because of their immigration or citizenship status at the time they applied. The Plaintiff Perez brings this putative class action against First Technology Federal Credit Union, alleging claims for alienage discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1966, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Perez alleges First Tech has a policy of denying applicants for residential secured loans based on their immigration and/or citizenship status. First Tech is a federally chartered credit union. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BdBgsI at no extra charge.[CC] FOCUS SOLUTIONS: Davis Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brenda Davis, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. IN-FOCUS SOLUTIONS, LLC., AND MEAGHAN COOPER, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00489-MCR-ZCB (N.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), that they are entitled to: unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated damages. The Plaintiff seeks class-wide relief on behalf of herself, and all other similarly situated employees, who were subjected to Defendant's common and illegal pay practices and policies of failing to pay their employees proper overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendants' policy or practice was applicable to Plaintiff and all current and former similarly situated non-exempt employees employed by Defendants, which resulted in the non-payment of proper overtime to Plaintiff, and which applies and continues to apply to all putative class members. The Defendants have acted willfully in failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members in accordance with the law. The Defendants have failed to maintain accurate records of Plaintiff and the putative class members' work hours in accordance with the law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt employee performing. The Defendants are a call center marketing company that employs Business Development Agents ("BDAs"), Customer Service Representatives (and other similar job titles) to handle inbound and Outbound calls to connect customers with car dealership maintenance and service shops and car dealerships to schedule vehicle maintenance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street 84, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com FORTIVE CORPORATION: Dudley Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Michael Dudley and Sherry Dudley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORTIVE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-01668 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought arising because it is foreseeable that the exposure of consumers' personally identifying information ("PII" or "Private Information") to unauthorized persons--especially hackers with nefarious intentions--will cause harm to such individuals. In the course of its business, Defendant collects consumer data including, but not necessarily limited to, consumers' social security numbers, first and last names, dates of birth, full addresses, and preferred mailing addresses, and has a resulting duty to securely maintain such information in confidence. The Defendant warrants to consumers that the services it offers on its website are safe and secure. Contrary to its assurances, Defendant did not maintain adequate systems and procedures to ensure the security of the highly sensitive PII consumers entrusted to it. As more specifically described below, this Complaint concerns a recent targeted ransomware attack and data breach (the "Data Breach") on Fortive's network that resulted in unauthorized access to the highly sensitive data of over 31,000 individuals. Up to and through November 2023, Defendant obtained the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members and stored that PII, unencrypted, in an Internet accessible environment on Defendant Fortive's network, from which unauthorized actors used an extraction tool to retrieve sensitive PII belonging to Plaintiffs and Class Members. In the website notice, Defendant claimed that it learned of the Data Breach during November 2023, yet it waited for over ten months before posting its website notices. Even after the notices were posted, it was seen by very few consumers. On information and belief, most consumers did not know about the data breach until receiving a letter notice from Defendant more than ten months after Defendant had learned of the Data Breach. The Defendant breached its duty to protect the sensitive PII entrusted to it, failed to abide by its own Privacy Policy, and failed to provide sufficiently prompt notice after learning of the Data Breach. As such, Plaintiffs bring this Class action on behalf of themselves and over 31,000 other consumers whose PII was accessed and exposed to unauthorized third parties. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's inadequate data security and breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, Plaintiffs' and the Class's PII has been accessed by hackers, likely posted on the dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs PII was stored and handled by Defendant on its systems. Fortive represents itself as a "provider of essential technologies for connected workflow solutions across a range of attractive end-markets."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Email: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Phone: (215) 867-2399 Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com FREMONT COMPANY: Baker Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- James Baker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE FREMONT COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-01762 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 10, 2024), is brought challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages. Specifically, the Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as an hourly food manufacturing employee. During his employment, Plaintiff has worked 40 or more hours in one or more workweek(s). The Defendant does not compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for the time spent donning and doffing PPE, washing hands, or related walking and waiting time, all of which that is performed off the clock. Additionally, Defendant has, on at least one occasion, altered Plaintiff's clock-in time to a later time than when Plaintiff actually clocked in for the workday, resulting in unpaid work time. As a result of Defendant's policies and practices, Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been compensated for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff works in food manufacturing, making ketchup at Defendant's Rockford, Ohio facility. The Defendant is a business engaged in the manufacturing of tomato based sauces, fermented and pickled vegetables, and other specialty foods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com FURNITURE MART: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Furniture Mart USA, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-03877 (D. Minn., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.thefurnituremart.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers furniture and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, couches, sofas, loveseats, mattresses, desks, chairs, entertainment centers, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FUTURES EXPLORED: Hassler Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA HASSLER, an individual on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUTURES EXPLORED, INC., a California non-profit corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. C24-01991 (Filed July 29, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California -- San Francisco Division on Oct. 11, 2024. The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07140 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action on her own and on behalf of a purported class consisting of Defendant's current and former employees for: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2) failure to pay minimum wage; (3) failure to provide timely off duty meal periods; (4) failure to provide rest periods; (5) failure to main records and provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failure to pay wages due upon termination; (7) failure to provide sick leave; (8) failure to make proper disclosure in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, (9) failure to provide employment records, and (10) unfair competition. Futures Explored is a non-profit film school and studio for adults with developmental disabilities.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Vincent Fisher, Esq. Eleno Nunez Gonzalez, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 578-6900 Facsimile: (415) 578-6910 E-mail: Vfisher@ohaganmeyer.com Egonzalez@ohaganmeyer.com HAMILTON COLLEGE: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Leshawn Young, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. HAMILTON COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-07756 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ("RA") prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://hamilton.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to, https://athletics.hamilton.edu/index.aspx (collectively the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant operates the Hamilton online retail store as well as the Hamilton interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal HAPPY HIPPO: Deceptively Sells Loose Powder Products, L.S. Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- L.S., individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-01281 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2024) is a civil class action against the Defendant for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its kratom powder, capsule, and liquid extract products. Kratom is a dried leaf sold as a loose powder, packaged into gel capsules, or as a liquid extract. What reasonable consumers do not know, and what Defendant fails to disclose, is that the "active ingredients" in its kratom Products are equivalent to opioids. That is, kratom interacts with the same opioid receptors in the human brain as morphine, heroin, and other opioids do, and as such, kratom consumption has the same risks of addiction, dependency, and painful withdrawal symptoms, among various other negative side effects, the suit says. Allegedly, the Defendant intentionally failed to disclose these material facts regarding the dangers of kratom consumption anywhere on its Products' labeling, packaging, website, or marketing material. As a result, the Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws. Further, the Defendant intentionally misrepresents its Products to mislead consumers into thinking that kratom is a healthy, sugar-free, caffeine substitute, that is equivalent to any standard energy drink. However, this is not the case. The Defendant goes so far as to make its logo of a smiling, pink, happy hippopotamus. The Products look like a watermelon candy more than they do a hard opioid, contends the suit. The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and as a class action, on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of the Defendant's Products, for violations of: (i) California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code; (ii) California's False Advertising Law, Business and Professions Code; (iii) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (iv) breach of implied warranty; (v) unjust enrichment; and (vi) fraud by omission. Plaintiff L.S. resides in Stockton, California. The Plaintiff has been purchasing and using Happy Hippo's kratom Products for several years. Happy Hippo offers kratom powder, capsules, and extracts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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) 313-8150 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com - and - Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com HATCH BABY INC: Bott Sues Over Deceptive and Misleading Labels -------------------------------------------------------------- Tracy Bott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hatch Baby, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07135 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought to remedy the unjust business practices of Defendant with respect to the marketing and sales of its Hatch Baby Rest 1st Generation Sound Machine ("Recalled Sound Machine", "Class Sound Machine", or "Sound Machine"): The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that usage of the Product may increase the risk of electric shock. The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of the Recalled Sound Machine. This Recalled Sound Machine has a dangerously defective power adapter. The power adapter, as the name implies, is what powers the Sound Machine to operate through the consumer's power outlet allowing for electricity to flow from the power outlet to power the Sound Machine. Defendant's Sound Machine power adapter has an inherit flaw that can result in the unintended removal of the plastic housing surround the alternating current (AC) adapter, electricity comes out of outlets in the form of alternating current (AC), consequently exposing the power prongs and producing a risk of electrical shock to the Consumer, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased her Hatch Baby 1st Generation Sound Machine on the BuyBuyBaby website. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases Sound Machines, including the Recalled Sound Machine, nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com HOLISTIX TREATMENT: Sued Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data --------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Bennett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HOLISTIX TREATMENT CENTERS, LLC d/b/a LAKE WORTH HOLISTIX DETOX d/b/a LEVEL UP TREATMENT LAKE WORTH, Case No. 9:24-cv-81263-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought arising from Level Up's failure to protect highly sensitive data. Level Up stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "PII/PHI") about its current and former patients. But Level Up lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach impacted at least 6,567 individuals. The victims of the Data Breach included Defendant's current and former patients. According to Defendant's Breach Notice, on or about July 26, 2024, Defendant discovered that it was the target of a cyberattack. In other words, Level Up had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former patients' PII/PHI. Cybercriminals were able to breach Level Up's systems because Level Up failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, Level Up's failures placed the Class's PHI in a vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim. Level Up is an addiction treatment facility focused on providing behavioral healthcare management and treatment to individuals "from all around the United States, Canada, and internationally."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr, Suite 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Phone: (407) 720-4057 Fax: (407) 612-2206 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com HWOLVES GLOBAL: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HWOLVES GLOBAL ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a HIGH FASHION SMOKES AND PRINTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07602 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.highfashionsmokesandprints.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: broken links, empty aria elements absent accessible names, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant alternative text, and skipped heading levels. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Hwolves Global Enterprises, LLC, doing business as High Fashion Smokes and Prints, is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 656-1889 Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com bennitta@employeejustice.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Breedlove Sues Over Defective Braking Systems ------------------------------------------------------------ Danielle Breedlove, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:24-cv-02196 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought against Defendant as a result of the Class Vehicles that contained defective Anti-lock Braking Systems and/or Traction Control Systems that impair the vehicles' ability to decelerate when driving over uneven surface, which Hyundai refused to repair. Hyundai sold Plaintiff and class members defective 2023-2024 Hyundai Palisade vehicles (the "Class Vehicles") that contain defective Anti-lock Braking System and/or Traction Control System that impair the vehicles' ability to decelerate when driving over uneven surface. In promotional materials, Hyundai boasted that the top-of-the-line Palisade comes equipped with "all the safety and advanced tech features you can think of," and prominently displays on its website that "The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) bestows PALISADE with TOP SAFETY PICK for 2024." 2023-2024 Hyundai Palisades' standard safety equipment includes the "Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) with 4-wheel disc brakes" and "Electronic Stability Control (ESC) with Traction Control Support (TCS) and Brake Assist (BA)," amongst other safety systems. The Class Vehicles' safety features were one of the primary reasons why Plaintiff and other class members decided to buy or lease the Class Vehicles over the competition. However, the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) and/or Traction Control System in the Class Vehicles are defective, causing miscalculations of wheel speed when the brakes are applied on rough or uneven road surface, which leads to the rapid release and reapplication of the brakes and results in a longer stopping distance than reasonably expected ("ABS Defect" or "Defect"). Hyundai has failed to repair the ABS Defect in Class Vehicles within a reasonable time. As a result, many Class Vehicle owners have been forced to continue driving their cars with faulty brakes that suffer from the ABS Defect, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a new 2024 Hyundai Palisade, Vehicle. Hyundai Motor America designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 1100 West Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Phone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 Email: tkent@lemberglaw.com INSURANCE AGENCY: Lovell Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT LOVELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE AGENCY MARKETING SERVICES, INC. Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00390 (D. Neb., October 2, 2024) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the personally identifiable information suffered by Insurance Agency. On or about March 1, 2024 to May 3, 2024, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained access to IAMS's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, name, date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license number, passport number, EIN, and checking and savings account numbers of customers, including Plaintiff. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect victims' PII, says the suit. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit asserts. Insurance Agency Marketing is an independent insurance brokerage agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com INSURANCE AGENCY: Moore Suit Alleges Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MOORE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE AGENCY MARKETING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00391 (D. Neb., October 3, 2024) arises out of Defendant's failures to properly secure and safeguard thousands of Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health information. The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise its network that, upon information and belief, contained the private information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach occurred from March 1, 2024 to May 3, 2024, and Defendant sent a data breach notice letter to affected individuals on or about September 20, 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 individuals' private information with which it was entrusted, 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. Insurance Agency Marketing Services, Inc. is an independent insurance brokerage agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com ISS ACTION: Vazquez Labor Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to S.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN VAZQUEZ and RANDY SUTTON, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ISS ACTION, INC., a New York Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. ECU003698 (Filed Aug. 30, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Imperial to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Oct. 11, 2024. The Southern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01836-LL-SBC to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs' Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay minimum and overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to authorize and permit required paid rest breaks; failure to reimburse required expenses; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay all wages owed upon separation; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Iss Action, Inc. provides security services.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jason F. Meyer, Esq. J. Todd Konold, Esq. Jose A. Vega Zamudio, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-7767 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: jmeyers@grsm.com tkonold@grsm.com jvega@grsm.com JAMO 31: Expert Discovery in Kim Suit Due Dec. 30 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ W. KIM, JEE YEON HAN, JAE HWAN SHIN, and DEVIN LIU, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. JAMO 31 INC. d/b/a OSAMIL, JAMO 31 PLUS INC. d/b/a OSAMIL UPSTAIRS, MOKWOO KIM, WON CHUL SEO a/k/a LION SEO, and IRENE LEE a/k/a SOOKYUNG LEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-02062-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered a revised civil case management order in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)(3): -- Initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) shall be promptly exchanged prior to the Initial Pretrial Conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). a. Initial disclosures were made on June 25, 2024 by Plaintiffs and will be made by Defendants by July 9, 2024. -- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Dec. 30, 2024. -- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than Dec. 30, 2024. -- Parties may include other provisions. See Rule 26(f)(3).] Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for Rule 23 Class Certification upon the conclusion of fact discovery. The Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for July 10, 2024 is adjourned sine die. Osamil is a modern Korean gastropub located in the bustling heart of New York City's Koreatown. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=veMuRl at no extra charge.[CC] JAYA APPAREL: Agnone Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Pasquale Agnone, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jaya Apparel Group, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-07195 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.cinqasept.nyc (hereinafter "Cinqasept.nyc" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Cinqasept.nyc, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Virtue Labs' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Jaya Apparel Group provides to the public a website known as Cinqasept.nyc which provides consumers with access to an array of women's clothing and accessories which Defendant offers in connection with their physical location.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com JOHN PAUL: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bishop Says ----------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07488 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://paulmitchell.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on September 26, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Clean Everyday Conditioner from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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; and that denied him the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. John Paul Mitchell Systems operates the website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about hair care 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 KEY BISCAYNE: Brito Balks at Property's Architectural Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. KEY BISCAYNE OIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-23808 (S.D. Fla., October 2, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant, Key Biscayne Oil, owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at the commercial property, and business within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and business, says the suit. Key Biscayne Oil, Inc. owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation as defined by the ADA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 Primary E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary E-Mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Erickson Alleges Toxic Chemicals in Baby Wipes ------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGET ERICKSON, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07032 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated who purchased Huggies Simply Clean Fragrance Free baby wipes (the "Product"), which are unfit for their intended use because they contain, or risk containing, unsafe levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, had the Plaintiff Erickson known that the Product contained, or risked containing, dangerous levels of toxic PFAS chemicals, and therefore was not composed of "gentle" ingredients and safe for young children when used as intended, Plaintiff Erickson would not have purchased the Product or would have purchased it under substantially different terms. Plaintiff Erickson did not receive the benefit of her bargain because the Product was not, in fact, safe for use as intended because of the inclusion, or risk, of PFAS chemicals. Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a global health and hygiene company that manufactures and provides consumer products. The Company's products include diapers, tissues, paper towels, incontinence care products, surgical gowns, and disposable face masks. Kimberly-Clark's products are sold in countries around the world. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa Seeks to Certify Class of Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS and GRANT DEAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-JPO (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The Plaintiff contends that she should be named class representative and undersigned counsel appointed as class counsel. The Plaintiff's claims are typical because they "challenge the same conduct that would be challenged by the class." The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of: "All production, inventory and shipping workers who worked overtime hours and who were not paid overtime wages between May 9, 2019 and the present." The Plaintiff and all members of the proposed class were low-wage assembly line workers employed in the Defendants' cannabidiol ("CBD") gummy manufacturing operation. The Defendants allegedly misclassified their employees as independent contractors and, as a result, refused to pay them overtime wages. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties on her own behalf and on behalf of her similarly situated co-workers Kiss Nutraceuticals is in the business of manufacturing CDB gummy bears, among other products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WSZcWv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew H. Turner, Esq. Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com LAMBSBREATH LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Robles Says ----------------------------------------------------------- PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMBSBREATH LLC d/b/a LAMB'S BREAD DISPENSARY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07501 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2024) is a civil action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.lambsbreaddispensary.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 New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant's website in Bronx County. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff's full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant's website. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. LAMBSBREATH LLC, d/b/a LAMB'S BREAD DISPENSARY, is a New York limited liability company that owns and maintains two dispensaries, one in New York County and the other in Yonkers.[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 LINCOLN COUNTY, TN: Logan Bid for Appointment of Counsel Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIRK H. LOGAN, IV, v. LINCOLN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, N. ANDY MYRICK, JEFRES GOLDTRAP, and CINDY WISEMAN, Case No. 4:24-cv-00051-CEA-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Charles Atchley, Jr. entered an order that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel is denied; 2. Plaintiff's motion for status is granted to the extent that the Court enters this memorandum and order and the accompanying judgment order; 3. Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to address the fact that a pro se litigant cannot file a class action is denied as moot; and 4. Even liberally construing the complaint in Plaintiff's favor, his requests for relief are not cognizable herein or are moot; 5. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiff has not set forth any facts suggesting that this action may be appropriate for class certification. As such, the Court declines to appoint Plaintiff counsel on this ground. Plaintiff has not established that this is an exceptional case where he is entitled to appointment of counsel, and his motion to appoint counsel is denied. The Plaintiff's motion for status is granted only to the extent that the Court enters this memorandum and order and the accompanying judgment order. Plaintiff, a former inmate of the Lincoln County Jail, filed a pro se complaint for violation of § 1983 [Doc. 1] and an amended complaint [Doc. 3] regarding incidents during his Lincoln County confinement. Lincoln County is a county located in the south central part of the U.S. state of Tennessee. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gOCYNI at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: $6.625MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- If you bought advertising on LinkedIn, you could get a payment from a class action settlement. A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. LinkedIn Corporation ("LinkedIn") has agreed to pay $6.625 million to resolve a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of U.S. advertisers who purchased advertising through LinkedIn Marketing Solutions ("LMS") between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2023. The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether LinkedIn acted unlawfully by misrepresenting how it calculates fees incurred by online advertisers and failing to adequately review its online advertising metrics for accuracy. The settlement avoids costs and risks to you from continuing the lawsuit; pays money to purchasers of advertising like you; and releases LinkedIn from liability. The attorneys representing all Class Members will file a request for attorneys' fees, cost reimbursements, and service awards to the Class Representatives for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating the Settlement. If these fees, costs, and service awards are granted and after settlement administration expenses are paid, an estimated $4,763,875.06 million will remain to be paid to Class Members. The two sides disagree on how much money could have been won if purchasers of LinkedIn's LMS advertising won a trial. Plaintiffs estimate that the most the Class might recover at a trial is $24,000,000 to $60,000,000. That best-case scenario assumes Plaintiffs won an appeal of a trial court ruling dismissing their claims with prejudice, won class certification, survived summary judgment, overcame challenges to their experts and damages models, won at trial, and won post-trial appeals, all of which is difficult, expensive, and would likely take several more years. On top of that, a jury could find for the Plaintiffs but award less money than Plaintiffs request, including minimal or no money. For its part, LinkedIn believes that even if Plaintiffs had succeeded at trial, the alleged unlawful conduct did not cause any damages and so the Class would recover nothing. Read this notice carefully as your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT: EXCLUDE YOURSELF Get no payment. This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of any other lawsuit against LinkedIn about the legal claims in this case. OBJECT Write to the Court about why you don't like the settlement. GO TO A HEARING Ask to speak in Court about the fairness of the settlement. DO NOTHING Get a payment. Give up rights to sue LinkedIn over the claims in this case. These rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them—are explained in this notice. The Court in charge of this case still must decide whether to approve the settlement. Payments will be made if the Court approves the settlement and after appeals are resolved. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:00 a.m. PT on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, at the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113, in Courtroom 6 on the 4th Floor. At this hearing the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are objections, the Court will consider them. Magistrate Judge van Keulen will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may also decide how much to pay to Class Counsel and the Class Representatives. After the hearing, the Court will decide whether to approve the settlement. If you don't want a payment from this settlement, but you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue LinkedIn, on your own, about the legal issues in this case, then you must take steps to get out. This is called excluding yourself -- or is sometimes referred to as opting out of the settlement Class. To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to be excluded from the class settlement in In Re LinkedIn Advertising Metrics Litigation, Case No. 5:20 cv-08324-SVK. Be sure to include your name, mailing address, one or more email addresses associated with your LinkedIn advertising account, LMS advertiser account identification number, and your signature. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than November 5, 2024 to LinkedIn LMS Exclusions c/o AB Data, Ltd. PO Box 173001 Milwaukee, WI 53217 If you ask to be excluded, you will not get any settlement payment, and you cannot object to the settlement. You will not be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit. You may be able to sue (or continue to sue) LinkedIn in the future. If you do nothing, you'll receive a settlement payment as described above, as long as the Court approves the settlement. But, unless you exclude yourself, you won't be able to start a lawsuit, continue with a lawsuit, or be part of any other lawsuit against LinkedIn about the legal issues in this case, ever again. This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. More details are in the Settlement Agreement available at www.LinkedInAdvertisingClassAction.com or by contacting the settlement administrator at info@LinkedInAdvertisingClassAction.com or call 877-411-4976 You can email the settlement administrator at info@LinkedInAdvertisingClassAction.com or call 1-877-411-4976 toll free; or visit the website at www.LinkedInAdvertisingClassAction.com, where you will find answers to common questions about the settlement, plus other information to help you determine whether you are a Class Member and whether you are eligible for a payment. You can also contact Class Counsel for them to answer questions. Class Counsel: Nick Larry KELLER POSTMAN LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60606 nl@kellerpostman.com (312) 948-8472 Dave Neiman ROMANUCCI & BLANDIN, LLC 321 N. Clark St., Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60654 dneiman@rblaw.net (312) 253-8810 This notice only summarizes the proposed settlement. For the precise terms and conditions of the settlement, see the Settlement Agreement available at www.LinkedInAdvertisingClassAction.com, by contacting Class Counsel using the contact information above, by accessing the Court docket in this case, for a fee, through the Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, Room 2112, San Jose, California 95113, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court holidays. PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT. LIVE NATION: Gordon Legal Investigates Dynamic Ticket Pricing ------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Donaldson, Mayeta Clark, Avani Dias, and Lara Sonnenschein, writing for abc.net.au, report that a class action law suit could be launched against Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation over its "dynamic pricing" practices. Live Nation says it does not use "algorithmic surge pricing" technology, but instead helps artists understand demand for their tickets. What's next? Gordon Legal expects its investigation into a potential class action will take several months. A law firm is investigating whether to launch a class action against multinational Live Nation and its ticketing arm Ticketmaster on behalf of Australian music fans. It follows revelations by Four Corners that the live entertainment company, along with its competitor Ticketek, charges fans hidden fees for concert tickets. Live Nation also uses a practice called "dynamic pricing", a process where a ticket price goes up as it gets more popular. Gordon Legal partner James Naughton said his firm had been contacted by a number of people with concerns about Live Nation's "dynamic pricing model and their ticketing model". "People feel like they don't get . . . any idea about what the price of the tickets are until they go into a queue, which can take a significant amount of time to wait in. And then they're given a very short period of time to decide whether to purchase the ticket or not," Mr Naughton said. He said his firm was examining whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster had engaged in "deceptive, misleading or unconscionable conduct", and whether any consumer protection laws had been breached. "What we're mostly concerned about is circumstances where people feel under pressure to buy tickets," he said. Live Nation declined to comment when asked about Gordon Legal's plans. The multinational company, which made record revenue of almost $US23 billion ($31.14 billion) last year, has committed to expanding dynamic pricing. In Australia, the model has been used for Green Day tickets, the Australian Open, and the Grand Prix. "Ticketmaster does not set prices, nor do we have or offer algorithmic surge pricing technologies," Live Nation said in a statement responding to earlier questions about the practice. "Ticketing companies do not control how artist teams and other event organisers price their shows or whether they adjust prices up or down based on demand. "We have tools to help artist teams understand demand for their tickets." The United Kingdom's competition watchdog is investigating dynamic pricing. However, Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke said Australian consumers were used to it. "I think we have to be realistic. It's always been there," he said. "It's not something we're looking at, at the moment." In its investigation of Live Nation's activities in Australia, Four Corners found that concertgoers faced a raft of hidden fees, some of which they were unaware of. For a ticket over $65 at the Palais Theatre in Melbourne, for example, music fans can be charged up to $30 to $40 in fees. Live Nation told the program that "tickets are actually priced by artists and teams". "Ticketmaster complies fully with Australian Consumer Law by incorporating per ticket or percentage fees into the price of the ticket paid by fans, and prominently disclosing any optional or transaction level fees," Live Nation said in a statement. "These fees support essential services, including tech development and innovation, customer service, security and compliance, all of which require significant investment." Live Nation added that Ticketmaster does not set fees, and they are decided by venues to "cover costs for both the venue and the ticketing company". Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett told Four Corners that musicians do not receive the full amount reflected in the ticket price. "The artist does set a range of ticket price to where it is, the artist doesn't set the booking fee, doesn't set any other hidden fees that exist within that ticket price, of which there are plenty of examples," he said. [GN] LOS ANGELES, CA: Electronically Filed Docs in Griffin Stricken --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order striking electronically filed documents. -- Other: Document lacks word count certification per L.R. 11−6.2. Counsel shall file a corrected document within 1 day from the date of this order. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Em4G3S at no extra charge.[CC] LUSH HANDMADE: Keskinen Suit Removed From Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY KESKINEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LTD, a Canadian corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 24STCV23268 (Filed Sept. 9, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2024. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02168 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges "Lush violated Section 632.7 by routinely and intentionally recording conversations with consumers on their cellular telephones, without their knowledge or consent." The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of: "all persons who, while residing or located in California, had a telephone conversation with Lush on a cellular telephone that was recorded without first having consented to recordation of the call within one year preceding the filing of this action through the date of certification." Lush produces creams, soaps, shampoos, shower gels, lotions, moisturisers, fragrances, scrubs, toothpaste tablets, masks and other cosmetics.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Victor Sandoval, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 E-mail: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com victor.sandoval@blankrome.com MELINDA DERUS: Bartz Loses Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DONN BARTZ, v. MELINDA DERUS, ERIN DUNAHAY, CHAD McCUNE, ERIC SPECKHART, AMANDA LUEBCHOW, NICOLE TREVINO, HOLLY GUNDERSON, and SARAH COOPER, Case No. 3:24-cv-00398-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Conley entered an order that: 1. The Plaintiff Michael Donn Bartz is granted leave to proceed with Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to his need for medically necessary accommodations for degenerative disc disease against the following members of the Special Needs Committee at Jackson Correctional Institution: Melinda Derus; Erin Dunahay; Chad McCune; Eric Speckhart; Amanda Luebchow; and Nicole Trevino. The Plaintiff is also granted leave to proceed with state-law negligence claims against these defendants. 2. The Plaintiff is denied leave to proceed with any other claim. 3. The Plaintiff's claims against Holly Gunderson and Sarah Cooper are dismissed without prejudice. The clerk shall terminate these defendants and revise the style of the case accordingly. 4. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied. 5. Pursuant to an informal service agreement between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of plaintiff's complaint and this order are being sent today to the Attorney General for service on defendants Derus, Dunahay, McCune, Speckhart, Luebchow, and Trevino. Under the agreement, the Department of Justice will have 60 days from the date of the Notice of Electronic Filing in this order to answer or otherwise plead to the plaintiff's complaint if it accepts service for the defendants. 6. The Plaintiff's motion to defer ruling on his request for a preliminary injunction is denied as moot now that his complaint has been screened. The Plaintiff Michael Donn Bartz is a prisoner incarcerated at Jackson Correctional Institution ("JCI") by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("DOC"). Representing himself, plaintiff has filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, claiming that the primary defendants, who are members of JCI’s Special Needs Committee, are liable for negligence under state law and have violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by denying special needs accommodations for physical impairments caused by a degenerative disc disease in his cervical spine. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=czYnbY at no extra charge.[CC] MICROGENICS CORP: Court to Consider Summary Judgment Bids --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADEZDA STEELE-WARRICK and DARRYL SCHULTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICROGENICS CORPORATION, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC., ANTHONY ANNUCCI, JAMES O'GORMAN, CHARLES KELLY, RICHARD FINNEGAN, DONALD VENETTOZZI, ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, COREY BEDARD, and JENNIFER BOOTH, Case No. 1:19-cv-06558-FB-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order that: -- Under the circumstances of this case, the Court will therefore first entertain the proposed summary judgment motions on the issue of qualified immunity before addressing any other motions for summary judgment or class certification. -- However, subsequent summary judgment motions, if made, will be addressed in conjunction with any class certification motion. On Sept. 24, 2024, the parties held a pre-motion conference regarding their proposed motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the "one-way intervention rule" requires this Court to decide on class certification before making merits determinations. That "rule" ensures that a merits determination binds all purported class members. But as Defendants Annucci, O'Gorman, Kelly, Finnegan, and Bedard correctly contend, the Court has discretion to decide the summary judgment motions before turning to the issue of class certification. Plaintiffs concede that the Court has such discretion. And no party cites a case that treats the "one-way intervention rule" as precluding such judicial discretion. Microgenics develops, manufactures, and markets medical equipment. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6HL5C6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF ABADY WARD & MAAZEL LLP 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 The Defendants are represented by: Linda Fang, Esq. NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 - and - Christopher R. Carton, Esq. BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 317 George Street, Suite 320 New Brunswick, NJ 08901 MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Faulkner Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARNEL FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-02557-D (N.D. Tex., Oct. 10, 2024) alleges that MoneyGram failed to safeguard the sensitive personal identifying information (PII) of millions of its consumers and failed to implement robust security measures to prevent this information from being stolen. On Sept. 27, 2024, MoneyGram detected unauthorized access to its systems between Sept. 20-22. MoneyGram revealed that attackers had gained access through a social engineering attack on MoneyGram's IT help desk. MoneyGram publicly disclosed the data breach on Oct. 7, 2024, approximately ten days after detecting unauthorized access. It confirmed that sensitive customer information had been compromised, including names, contact details, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, copies of government-issued IDs, and bank account information, the suit says. MoneyGram did not need to store this Private Information at all. Once identities are verified, as the Plaintiff was required to do each time he transferred funds, MoneyGram could delete government identification numbers. Instead, MoneyGram retains information to increase its profits, to gather information regarding its customers, and to track its customers and their behaviors. Had MoneyGram disclosed to the Plaintiff and its other customers that its data systems were not secure and were vulnerable to attack, the Plaintiff would not have utilized MoneyGram's services, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff has allegedly suffered damages and remains at significant risk now that his Private Information has been leaked online and/or otherwise compromised, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff has regularly used MoneyGram for years, first using it to pay rent 8-10 years ago. The Plaintiff last transferred funds through the Platform during or around autumn of 2023. MoneyGram is a global money transfer and payment services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Warren T. Burns, Esq. Darren Nicholson, Esq. Chase Hilton, Esq. BURNS CHAREST LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (469) 904-4550 E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com dnicholson@burnscharest.com chilton@burnscharest.com - and - Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Tiara Avaness, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com NATIONAL GENERAL: King Loses Class Cert Bid w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered a supplemental briefing order as follows: -- Plaintiffs have not established Article III standing for Lee; -- Plaintiffs have shown sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could determine that PEIC was in the control group between April 19, 2013, and April 1, 2014; -- Plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Kings were eligible for the MIC lower-rate policy; -- Plaintiffs have shown sufficient evidence to support their argument that the lower-rate PEIC policy was comparable to the NGIC policy purchased by the Kings in June 2013; and -- Plaintiffs have not established standing for injunctive relief. The court also finds that insurers in a control group are not automatically liable to each other for violations of section 1861.16(b) under a concerted action theory solely because they are members of the control group. The parties' administrative sealing motions are addressed in a separate order. This order, coupled with the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Sequoia, will have a significant impact on the parties' positions on class certification. The pending class certification motion is therefore denied without prejudice to Plaintiffs' refiling the motion to conform to these developments. All existing case deadlines are vacated. The parties shall meet and confer and shall submit a proposed Rule 23 briefing schedule20 as well as a new case schedule by Oct. 22, 2024. The Plaintiffs Edd King, Dierdre King and Sheila Lee bring this putative class action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated qualified good drivers. They allege that Defendants unlawfully overcharged them for auto insurance premiums in violation of California Insurance Code ("CIC") section 1861.16(b). National General Insurance, formerly the GMAC Insurance Group is a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based property and casualty insurance company. The company was founded in 1920. The company is the only insurance company in the United States to originate within the automotive industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIekgl at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL GENERAL: Parties Must Re-file Materials ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered an order directing the parties to re-file versions of the materials pursuant to October 22, 2024, Order. -- The order terminates Docket Nos. 302, 346, 347, 364, 370, and 394, re-file the Patel Declaration Exhibits 4-14, and re-file the Conroy Declaration with paragraphs 11-14 unredacted. -- The court grants this motion and orders Defendants to re-file the Patel Declaration Exhibits 4-14, redacting only the portions of the documents with Plaintiffs' addresses. -- The court grants the motion to seal portions of the Conroy Declaration except for paragraphs 11-14, referencing the March 30, 2009, Broker Agreement entered into between Omni Safe and Defendants. -- The court relied on this information in its order, and the information is at a high level of generality which does not reveal specific confidential business practices. Defendants shall re-file the Conroy Declaration with paragraphs 11-14 unredacted. -- The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 7, 2023. In connection with this motion, the parties filed six administrative sealing motions. The court addresses the motions to seal in connection with the court's order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fX568y at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL LUTHERAN: Chittum Sues Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------- Jessica Chittum, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL LUTHERAN INC. d/b/a NATIONAL LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES & SERVICES, and THE LEGACY AT NORTH AUGUSTA INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00082-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). Plaintiff contends Defendant has violated and continue to violate the FLSA and VOWA by having the following policies and practices: Not paying overtime compensation at 1.5 times Plaintiff's and similarly situated employees' regular rates of pay; and Not including shift differentials or other forms of incentive pay in calculating overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. These policies and practices of Defendant resulted and results in Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime wages than they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA and less regular wages than they are entitled to receive under the VPWA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Virginia who was employed by the Defendants in Virginia as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") from July 2023 to February 2024. The Defendants operate long term care facilities in Virginia and Maryland, and possibly other locations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (434) 218-3133 Fax: (434) 321-1636 Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com NATURE'S PATH: Mislabels Panda Puffs Cereals, Rutledge Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW RUTLEDGE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATURE'S PATH FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-02107 (C.D. Cal., October 2, 2024) is a California consumer class action for violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of express warranty. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells Panda Puffs(R) cereals. The packaging prominently displays on the front of the label the claim that these products contain "No Artificial Flavors, Colors or Preservatives." This statement is false. Each of the products are made with tocopherols -- an artificial preservative ingredient used in food products, says the suit. The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is intended to give consumers the impression that they are buying a premium product that is free from artificial preservatives. The Plaintiff was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts. Nature's Path Foods, Inc. is an organic food company that offers breakfast and snack foods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Kurt D. Kessler, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 NEW YORK: Commissioner Sued Over Right to Purchase Firearms ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANN MARIE T. SULLIVAN, M.D. in her official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Mental Health (OMH); and DOES 1-4 in their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00963 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 7, 2024) is an action for compensatory, economic, and punitive damages costs, and reasonable statutory attorney's fees, for the Defendants' violation of the Plaintiff's constitutional rights as protected by the Second Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, provides no notice to individuals, like the Plaintiff, who are entered into the OMH reporting database informing (i) that they have been reported to OMH, (ii) that OMH is reporting them to NICS, and (iii) that they are now banned from possessing, purchasing, and receiving firearms. Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff should not even be in the reporting database, in April 2023 the Plaintiff filed an application for a Certificate of Relief with New York State's OMH Office of NICS Appeals and SAFE Act to be removed from the reporting database, but the Defendants refuse to process the application because Plaintiff cannot provide 'character reference' letters, says the suit. New York, often called New York City or NYC, is the most populous city in the United States, located at the southern tip of New York State on one of the world's largest natural harbors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy L. Bellantoni, Esq. THE BELLANTONI LAW FIRM, PLLC 2 Overhill Road, Suite 400 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Email: abell@bellantoni-law.com OLIVIA ROSE: Cardoso Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ana Cardoso, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OLIVIA ROSE ENTERPRISES INC. (DBA I LOVE NY) and CEZAR MIZRAHI, Case No. 2:24-cv-09756 (D.N.J., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") as recently amended by the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation for Plaintiff. Despite regularly working approximately 52 hours per week, she was not compensated for overtime in accordance with the laws in place. The Defendants willfully and intentionally maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any additiona compensation, as evidenced by timesheets, employee schedules, and other relevant documentation. Based on the information available, it is believed that the Defendants have knowingly and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL. This is evident from their pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, minimum wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked beyond 40 each workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a salesperson. OLIVIA ROSE ENTERPRISES INC. (DBA I LOVE NY) is a duly organized business corporation under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com ONE JEANSWEAR: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ EVA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE JEANSWEAR GROUP INC. and ONE JEANSWEAR GROUP LLC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07512 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges on behalf of herself, the Class, and other Collective Plaintiffs, that they are entitled from Defendants: (i) unpaid wages for overtime work performed, (ii) liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, (iii) liquidated damages, (iv) attorneys' fees, (v) interest, (vi) liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, and (vii) all costs and disbursements associated with this action. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants from December 2020 to February 2022 as senior sales associate.[BN] One Jeanswear Group Inc. designs, markets, produces and distributes branded and private label jeanswear.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com PESI INC: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Manza Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DANA MANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PESI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00690 (W.D. Wis., October 3, 2024) is an action to redress Defendant's practices of selling, renting, transmitting, and/or otherwise disclosing, to various third parties, records containing the personal information of Plaintiff and other customers, along with detailed information revealing the titles and subject matter of the videos and other audiovisual materials purchased in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Defendant disclosed its customers' private viewing information to various third-party recipients, which then appended that information to a myriad of other categories of personal and demographic data pertaining to those customers. The Defendant then systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers' personally identifying video purchase information to third parties, such as Meta Platforms, Inc., Alphabet, Inc. f/k/a Google, and Pinterest, Inc. using snippets of programming code. The Defendant's practice of disclosing its customers' private viewing information in violation of the VPPA has invaded Plaintiff's and the other unnamed Class members' privacy and resulted in a barrage of unwanted junk mail to their home addresses and e-mail inboxes, says the suit. Pesi, Inc. operates and maintains the website www.pesi.com, where it sells prerecorded video content including: conferences, seminars, workshops, on-demand courses, and DVDs on various topics such as nursing, healthcare, education, and other fields.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com PILOT SERVICES: Bagley Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Timmie Bagley, individually and for others similarly situated v. PILOT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a PILOT GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES f/k/a VON TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08727 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid wages as a result of the Defendant's violation California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees overtime at the required premium rate. Likewise, the Plaintiff and other Hourly Employees occasionally work more than 12 hours a day and more than 8 hours on their seventh consecutive workday. But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and other Hourly Employees double time at the required premium rate. Instead of paying overtime or double time at the required premium rates when these employees work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week, the Defendant pays The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees half their base rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a week. (the Defendant's "half time pay scheme"). The Defendant's half time pay scheme violates the California Labor Code and applicable IWC Wage Order(s) by depriving the Plaintiff and other Hourly Employees of overtime wages at rates not less than 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for the hours they work in excess of 8 a workday and 40 a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a field technician since October 2019 through the present. Pilot bills itself as a "technology company that empowers organizations to unleash their full potential through the design, installation and ongoing management of network solutions within the most complex business environments."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Hogg, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: whogg@mybackwages.com PLANT TRANSIT: Bowen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------- Heman Bowen, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. PLANT TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01227 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), alleging that the Defendant has failed to pay him and other bus drivers at the Tesla plant in Austin, Texas overtime compensation as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff's routes were solely within the confines of the Tesla campus--he was not driving passengers to any destinations outside of the campus. The Plaintiff and other bis drivers were typically scheduled to work 10-hour shifts. For the first several months of his work for Plant Transit, Plaintiff Bowen regularly worked 7 days--or 70 hours--per week. In subsequent months, he worked between five and six days--or 50-60 hours--each week. Other bus drivers working for Plant Transit at the Tesla campus likewise worked 50-70 hours a week. The Plaintiff and other drivers working for Plant Transit at the Tesla campus received a set "day rate" for each day worked. They did not receive time-and-a-half for any hours worked in excess of 40 a week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a bus driver for Plant Transit, Inc. between March 2023 and July 2024. Plant Transit, Inc. describes itself as a "workforce transportation company."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Fax: 817-840-5102 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com PRESIDIO BRANDS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Presidio Brands, Inc. d/b/a Every Man Jack, Case No. 1:24-cv-09958 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through https://everymanjack.com (hereinafter "Everymanjack.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Everymanjack.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Virtue Labs' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Presidio Brands provides to the public a website known as Everymanjack.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of shampoos, conditioners, body washes, soaps, deodorants, lotions, scrubs and moisturizers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com PROGENESIS INC: Cruz Sues Over False Aneuploidy Genetic Testing --------------------------------------------------------------- JODY CRUZ; MICHELLE ROBICHAUX; and BRETT PLOWFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGENESIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01789-JES-AHG (S.D. Cal., Oct. 7, 2024) is a class action lawsuit to recover economic losses suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of the false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading advertising and promotion of Defendant's preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy ("PGT-A" or "PGT-A testing"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant has known for years that there is insufficient evidence of efficacy of PGT-A testing, and that PGT-A testing does not improve pregnancy rates, reduce the chance of miscarriage, increase the success of IVF, or increase the chances of a healthy baby. Despite that, Defendant has continued to aggressively promote PGT-A testing to vulnerable and unsuspecting consumers. The Defendant has known for years that its PGT-A testing is not 97-98 percent accurate. Defendant has affirmatively misled patients with false and deceptive marketing and advertising in exchange for the opportunity to reap millions of dollars in profit each year from selling PGT-A testing, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class members have relied on the Defendant's false and deceptive marketing and advertising statements, and material omissions, in purchasing PGT-A testing, and have suffered economic losses as a direct result. Progenesis, Inc. specializes in genetic testing services for IVF, including Preimplantation Genetic Testing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Tel: (619) 489-0300 Email: srios@bm.net - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Email: scarson@bm.net - and - Allison S. Freeman, Esq. CONSTABLE LAW, P.A. 139 6th Avenue S Safety Harbor, FL 34695 Telephone: (727) 797-0100 Email: allison@constable-law.com - and - Paula S. Bliss, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC 210 Washington St. No. Easton, MA 02356 Telephone: (508) 230-2700 Email: paula@justicelc.com PUBLIX SUPER: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property --------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC.; THE MOOSE MAN INC. d/b/a PLANET SMOOTHIE; and FIVE GUYS PROPERTIES, LLC d/b/a FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES, Case No. 1:24-cv-23928-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Oct. 10, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property, Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., owned and operated a commercial property located in Doral, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Primary Email: rdiego@lawgmp.com Secondary Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com RIO TINTO: Initial Hearing in Mining Disaster Class Suit Starts --------------------------------------------------------------- Island Business reports that an initial hearing of a class action against mining giant Rio Tinto over the toxic legacy of the Panguna copper mine on the autonomous island of Bougainville has been held in Papua New Guinea. The lawsuit against Rio Tinto and its subsidiary Bougainville Copper Limited (BCL) is seeking compensation, expected to be in the billions of dollars, for what plaintiffs allege is historic mismanagement of the massive open copper-and-gold mine between 1972 and 1989. More than 5,000 claimants backed by anonymous investors are seeking damages for the destruction that sparked a 10-year long civil war. The Panguna mine closed in 1989 after anger about pollution and the unequal distribution of profits sparked a landowner rebellion. As many as 20,000 people -- or 10 percent of Bougainville's population -- are estimated to have died in the violence that followed between secessionist rebels and PNG. Although a peace process was brokered in 2001, deep political divisions remain and there has never been remediation for Panguna's environmental and psychological scars. The initial hearing for the lawsuit took place on Wednesday, October 9, a day ahead of schedule, at the National Court in Port Moresby, said Matthew Mennilli, a partner at Sydney-based Morris Mennilli. Mennilli, who is from one of two law firms acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, said he was unable to provide further details as court orders had not yet been formally entered. Rio Tinto did not respond to specific questions regarding this week's hearing, but said in a statement on Sept. 23 it had submitted a defense and would strongly defend its position in the case. The lawsuit is made up by the majority of villagers in the affected area of Bougainville, an autonomous province within PNG, situated some 800km east of the capital Port Moresby. At least 71 local clan leaders support the claim, with the lead claimant named as former senior Bougainville political leader and chief of the Basking Taingku clan Martin Miriori. The lawsuit is being bankrolled by Panguna Mine Action, a limited liability company that stands to reap between 20-40% of any payout depending on how long the case takes, according to litigation funding documents cited by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. While the lawsuit has support from a large number of local villagers, some observers fear it could upset social cohesion on Bougainville and potentially derail another long-standing remediation effort. The class action is running in parallel with an independent assessment of the mine's legacy, supported by human rights groups and the Autonomous Bougainville Government (ABG), and funded by Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto agreed in 2021 to take part in the Panguna Mine Legacy Impact Assessment after the Melbourne-based Human Rights Law Centre filed a complaint with the Australian government, on behalf of Bougainville residents. The group said the Anglo-Australian mining giant has failed to address Panguna's legacy of destruction, including the alleged dumping of more than a billion tonnes of mine waste into rivers that continues to affect health, the environment and livelihoods. The assessment, which is being done by environmental consulting firm Tetra Tech Coffey, includes extensive consultation with local communities and the first phase of the evaluation is expected to be delivered next month. ABG President Ishmael Toroama has called the Rio Tinto class action the highest form of treason and an obstacle to the government's economic independence agenda. "This class action is an attack on Bougainville's hard-fought unity to date," he said in May. In February, the autonomous government granted Australian-listed Bougainville Copper a five-year exploration license to revive the Panguna mine site. The Bougainville government is hoping its reopening will fund independence. In a non-binding 2019 referendum -- which was part of the 2001 peace agreement -- 97.7 percent of the island's inhabitants voted for independence. But PNG leaders have resisted the result, fearful that by granting independence it could encourage secessionist movements in other regions of the volatile Pacific Island country. Former New Zealand governor general Sir Jerry Mateparae was appointed last month as an independent moderator to help the two parties agree on terms of a parliamentary vote needed to ratify the referendum. In response to the class action, Rio Tinto said last month its focus remained on "constructive engagement and meaningful action with local stakeholders" through the legacy assessment. The company said it was "seeking to partner with key stakeholders, such as the ABG and BCL, to design and implement a remedy framework. [GN] ROCKETREACH LLC: Misappropriates Consumers' Info, Sant Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH SANT, MERTON CHUN, RONESHA SMITH, and HEATHER NICASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROCKETREACH LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01626 (W.D. Wash., October 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Washington's Personality Rights Act, the California Right of Publicity Law, the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and the Ohio Right of Publicity in Individual's Persona Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged practice of misappropriating the names, photographs, and other personally identifying information it has collected on millions of Americans, including the Plaintiffs, to advertise and promote its products and services. Specifically, the Defendant has created, published, and disseminated publicly accessible free-preview "profile" pages for each of the millions of Americans, including each of the Plaintiffs and proposed Class members, whose personal information appears in its database. The Defendant used the names and identities of the Plaintiffs and Class members to advertise and promote subscriptions to its platform without providing prior notice to, much less obtaining consent from, any of these people. As a result, the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class members have been violated, says the suit. RocketReach LLC is a company that owns and operates the website www.rocketreach.co, headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nick Major, Esq. NICK MAJOR LAW 450 Alaskan Way S. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 410-5688 Email: nick@nickmajorlaw.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 900-3331 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com SAKS & COMPANY: Kyungjo Balks at Fake Advertised "Sale" Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- ALICE KYUNGJO, HELEN HERNANDEZ, and EBONY EDGERSON, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SAKS & COMPANY, LLC, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC. and SAKS OFF 5TH, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-06934-JCS (N.D. Cal., October 3, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other customers, who purchased products that Defendants misrepresented were "on sale" from Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc. and Saks Off 5th, LLC in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. The Defendants sell and market clothing and accessories and prominently advertise sales both online and in stores. These advertisements include purported regular prices, purported discounts, and purported end dates for the sales. But these advertisements are false as the sales are not limited in time and the discounts continue to be available after date on which Defendants represent the offer ends, says the suit. The regular prices published by Defendants were not the prevailing regular prices. Had Defendants been truthful, the Plaintiffs and other consumers would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them. The Plaintiffs believed that they were getting a substantial discount from the regular prices, and that the sale would end soon, the suit added. Saks & Company, LLC operates chain of retail department stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. Domenica M. Russo, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63104 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com drusso@peifferwolf.com SHANE HILL: Fails to Pay Nursing Assistants' OT Wages, Irvin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AMALEA IRVIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SHANE HILL REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, LLC, dba DIVINE REHABILITATION AND NURSING AT SHANE HILL, and DIVINE HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01765 (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 10, 2024) challenges Defendants' timekeeping and pay practices by which they willfully violated their employees' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit alleges that the Defendants routinely failed to staff the DHM Facilities with sufficient employees to permit those working to take an uninterrupted meal break every shift. Moreover, the Defendants regularly scheduled employees, including the Plaintiff, to work 40 hours or more per workweek. The Defendants knew that non-exempt employees regularly and routinely worked without meal breaks, and intentionally failed to establish a reasonable process for reporting missed meals, the suit adds. As a result, the Defendants knowingly deprived the Plaintiff and similarly-situated non-exempt employees of regular and overtime pay, Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from January 2020 through October 2023 as a Certified Nursing Assistant, a position that was paid on an hourly basis and was non-exempt from overtime pay. Shane Hill is a nursing care and rehabilitation facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq. Kathleen R. Harris, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com katie@tittlelawfirm.com SHOUT! FACTORY: Discloses Info to Third Parties, McGrath Says ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK MCGRATH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Shout! Factory, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09360 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2024) is a class action complaint against the Defendant to obtain relief for its knowing disclosure of Plaintiff and other customers' personally identifiable information and prerecorded DVD viewing activity to third parties in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses third-party code to track prerecorded DVDs its customers purchase and sends that data to its third-party code vendors along with customers' PII, all without its customers' valid consent. The Defendant has knowingly installed pixels and other tracking technologies on its website developed by third party advertisers. These tracking technologies capture the PII of Defendant's customers relating to specific videos that Defendant's customers have purchased and disclose such PII to the third-party developers, all without the customers' informed, written consent, says the suit. Shout! Factory, LLC owns and operates shoutfactory.com, where it sells and ships DVDs to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Peterson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC 230 E. Ohio St., Suite 410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (815) 999-9130 E-mail: mtp@lawsforconsumers.com STEPHEN EHRLICH: Class Settlement in Roberts Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shaun Roberts and Ken Sheppard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Stephen Ehrlich, and Evan Psaropoulos, Case No. 1:22-cv-09590-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an order granting final approval of class settlement. - Certification of Injunctive Settlement Class: "All individuals in an Eligible LGBTQ+ Relationship, who are currently covered by a Commercial Plan provided or administered by AETNA in New York, and who currently or will in the future want to obtain coverage for IUI or IVF treatments." A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DicxN2 at no extra charge.[CC] STOP & SHOP: Fuller Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, Case No. 7:22-cv-09824-CS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move this Court, before the Honorable Cathy Seibel, for an Order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), and (b): 1. Certifying all persons who purchased adhesive patches purporting to deliver lidocaine for "Up to 8 hours" sold by the Defendant under the CareOne brand, in New York, from Nov. 17, 2019 through the present, excluding the judge or magistrate assigned to this case; Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest; Defendant's officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; and persons who purchased the Product for the purpose of resale; 2. Appointing Diane Fuller as representative of the Class; and 3. Appointing Sheehan & Associates P.C., as Class Counsel. Stop & Shop is an American regional chain of supermarkets located in the northeastern United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pjIxfa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com SUGOI GLOBAL: Suarez Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Online Store --------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN SUAREZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUGOI GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07611 (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.sugoi.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, unclear labels for interactive elements, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sugoi Global, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com TASKUS INC: Parties in Lozada Must Submit Class Cert Exhibits -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUMBERTO LOZADA, et al., v. TASKUS, INC., et al. Case No. 1:22-cv-01479-JPC-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order directing the parties to promptly submit (1) a cover letter with versions of Exhibits 1 through 11 attached that may be filed publicly (i.e., with black redactions) and, separately, (2) a proposed order instructing the Clerk of Court to replace Plaintiffs' existing publicly filed submissions with these documents. For example, the first exhibit to the parties' letter should be Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support for Class Certification with black redactions substituted for the parties' proposed yellow redactions. The proposed order should then instruct the Clerk of Court to replace Docket Number 114 (Plaintiffs' publicly-filed Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support for Class Certification) with the Docket Number assigned to the parties' anticipated submission containing the black redactions. With respect to the documents the parties propose to be filed publicly in their entirety (e.g., Exhibit 3 to Plaintiffs’ submission in advance of the August 20 discovery conference), the proposed order should direct the Clerk of Court to unseal the relevant filing and cite to both the public and sealed Docket Numbers. The parties do not need to submit a public version of the August 20 discovery conference transcript. Rather, the parties are directed to provide a copy of this Order and their proposed redactions (i.e., yellow highlights) to the transcriber at ammtranscription@gmail.com. For the avoidance of doubt, all of the parties' proposed redactions are approved. Pursuant to the Court's prior Orders, the parties submitted a joint letter on Sept. 11, 2024, indicating they have met and conferred and reached an agreement on Plaintiffs' motions to seal pending as of that date. The parties' joint submission effectively amends Plaintiffs' motions by significantly reducing the volume of proposed materials to be kept entirely under seal and limiting the number of proposed redactions in publicly available documents. In addition, Defendants propose limited redactions to the publicly available version of the transcript of the parties' Aug. 20, 2024, discovery conference before the undersigned. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation, customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk & response services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PLPuYb at no extra charge.[CC] TEA SPOT: Karim Seeks Equal Website Access to Blind Users --------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Tea Spot, PBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07462 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2024) is a civil rights action against The Tea Spot for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, www.theteaspot.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Plaintiff Karim has made an attempt to complete a purchase on Theteaspot.com as she was looking for organic tea and used Google to find options online. She discovered the Defendant's website, which offered a selection of organic tea products. On June 9, 2024, she attempted to purchase herbal tea, trying again on June 10, 2024. While navigating the website, she encountered accessibility issues, including a pop-up on the homepage, the lack of a 'Skip to content' link, and an inaccurate focus order. These issues prevented her from obtaining more information about the products and made completing her purchase independently impossible due to the access barriers on the Defendant's website. These access barriers have caused Theteaspot.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Tea Spot's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Tea Spot, PBC operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view different types of tea, including herbal, decaf, white, black, matcha, and others, as well as teapots, samplers, gift sets, and related 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 TICKETMASTER LLC: Anderson Suit Transferred to D. Montana --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Eric Anderson, Tiffany Moore, Dekima Thomas, on behalf of themselves and all others who are similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04709 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-00121-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: Sabita J. Soneji, Esq. TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 1970 Broadway Suite 1070 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com - and - Annick Marie Persinger TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1101 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4112 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: D. Scott Carlton, 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 TRAILS ACADEMY: Sued Over Negligent Misrepresentations ------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe L.Y. and June Doe A.D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRAILS ACADEMY, LLC., TRAILS CAROLINA, LLC, TRAILS MOMENTUM A/K/A TRAILS CAROLINA, WILDERNESS TRAINING & CONSULTING, LLC D/B/A FAMILY HELP & WELLNESS, WTC HOLDCO, LLC, WTCSL, LLC AND UNNAMED ENTITIES 1-10, Case No. 1:24-cv-00254 (W.D.N.C., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought to recover economic losses suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members as a result of the unfair business practices of the Defendants in violation of the North Carolina Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Florida Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and for negligent misrepresentations, and individually, for negligence/negligent infliction of emotional distress. Despite these claims, Defendants are part of an industry referred to by survivors as the "Troubled Teen Industry" which market themselves as an easy solution to fix "troubled" teens and family dynamics, but which have a dark history of abuse, negligence, and even death. For more than a decade, Defendants have advertised and sold residential programming to vulnerable adolescents, young adults, and families, charging exorbitant fees for programs which cause further harm and trauma to children, teens, young adults and their families. To attract potential customers despite this dismal history, Defendants have adopted a practice of targeting consumers in vulnerable positions, misrepresenting the nature of their programming and services, and engaging in unethical and coercive business practices in order to maintain consumers' business. Despite the façade of providing safe and beneficial residential programming for children and young adults, Defendants have failed to engage in fair business practices and do not fairly provide the services, programming, and goods for which they reap significant financial gain. Because of Defendants' unfair, immoral, and unethical business practices and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs Jane and June Doe, like hundreds of other families, sought information and help from Defendants for their children and young adults who were struggling at home. The Defendants, and their agents and employees, misrepresented the true nature of their programs, thereby manipulating vulnerable parents, like Jane and June Doe, into believing Defendants were going to take care of their delicate children and young adults struggling with challenges, including suicidal ideations, and provide them a place to heal and develop. Instead, Defendants dehumanized their residents. Defendants subjected their residents, including Jane and June Doe's son, to neglect, abuse and inhumane conduct, causing extensive harm and suffering to them. The Plaintiffs and Class members relied upon Defendants' misrepresentations to their financial detriment, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs each spent thousands of dollars for tuition based on Defendants' unfair business practices and material misrepresentations. The Defendants are for-profit entities in the business of advertising, making referrals for, and selling residential programming for "troubled" adolescents and young adults.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel R. Rhine, Esq. Ruth A. Sheehan, Esq. John Bruno, Esq. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Phone: (910) 772-9960 Fax: (910) 772-9062 Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com ras@rhinelawfirm.com jab@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq. Martha Carol, Esq. JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE 210 Washington St. North Easton, MA 0256 Phone: (508) 230-2700 Email: kim@justicelc.com martha@justicelc.com TRANS UNION: Supplemental Brief Filing Due Oct. 22 -------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered an order as follows: -- Plaintiff Valeriano Saucedo's supplemental brief due by Oct. 15, 2024 -- Trans Union supplemental brief due by Oct. 22, 2024. -- Any supplemental declarations shall not exceed five pages without leave of court. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d9q6Ft 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 TREASURY WINE: Settles Securities Class Action for $65-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- Derek Rose, writing for The New Daily, reports that Treasury Wine Estates has agreed to pay $65 million to settle a class action alleging it breached its continuous disclosure obligations with misleading earnings guidance in 2018 and 2019. The company eventually downgraded its guidance on January 28, 2020, causing its share price to plunge from $17 to under $13. A seven-week trial had been due to begin, October 14, in Victoria's Supreme Court but the settlement was reached instead. "The outcome means that group members who sustained losses as a result of Treasury's allegedly contravening conduct, will receive compensation in the short term," Slater and Gordon lead lawyer Mitchell Coidan said. Law firm Maurice Blackburn had also brought a claim on behalf of investors, which was consolidated into a joint action. TWE, the makers of Penfolds, Wolf Blass and Pepperjack, said it was making no admission of liability in settling the claim. "The settlement was a commercial decision made in the best interests of shareholders to enable TWE to remain focused on executing against its strategy," the company said in a statement. [GN] TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS: $189MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC issued a statement regarding the TuSimple Securities Settlement: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AUSTIN DICKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:22-cv-01300-BEN-MSB (Consolidated with No. 3:23-cv-00282-BEN- MSB) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED AND/OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TUSIMPLE HOLDINGS, INC. ("TUSIMPLE") SECURITIES BETWEEN APRIL 15, 2021 AND DECEMBER 20, 2022, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on December 2, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., before the Honorable Roger T. Benitez at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse, 221 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation") for $189 million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award payments pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in connection with Plaintiffs' representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement Class Members must or may participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the Court's docket and the Settlement website, www.TuSimpleSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information will be posted to the Settlement website, www.TuSimpleSecuritiesSettlement.com. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TUSIMPLE SECURITIES BETWEEN APRIL 15, 2021 AND DECEMBER 20, 2022, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than January 31, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than January 31, 2025). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by January 31, 2025, will subject your Proof of Claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or otherwise acquired TuSimple securities between April 15, 2021 and December 20, 2022, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be accessed online at www.TuSimpleSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to or calling: TuSimple Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 1-866-644-9953 Inquiries should NOT be directed to TuSimple, Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Class Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 12, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, LITIGATION EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $300,000, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED NO LATER THAN NOVEMBER 12, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: September 5, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at www.TuSimpleSecuritiesSettlement.com. UBISOFT INC: Fails to Protect Subscribers' Info, Lakes Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TREVOR LAKES, and ALEX RAJJOUB on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. UBISOFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-06943-KAW (N.D. Cal., October 3, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, seeking relief for Defendant's violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act and Wiretap Act. This is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who: (i) visited https://www.ubisoft.com/, operated by Defendant; and, either (a) purchased a video game on the Website, or (b) subscribed to the Website's Ubisoft+ service, which allowed users to gain access to video games on the Website. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not disclose on the Website that users' personally identifying information would be captured by the Meta Platforms, Inc. tracking Pixel utilized by Defendant, and then transferred to Meta thereby exposing the subscribers' PII to any person of ordinary technical skill who received that data. The Defendant purposefully implemented and utilized the Pixel, which tracks user activity on the Website and discloses that information to Facebook to gather valuable marketing data. The Defendant does not seek, and have not obtained, consent from PII Users to utilize the Pixel to track, share, and exchange their PII with Facebook, says the suit. Ubisoft, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California and serves as a business office and video game development studio, with nearly 500 employees in marketing, sales, business development, communications, finance, licensing, and game development.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Sara Beth Craig, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Ste. 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 766-3544 Facsimile: (415) 840-9435 E-mail: scraig@peifferwolf.com - and - Brandon Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Ste. 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 669-3600 Facsimile: (314) 898-9205 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Colin A. Brown, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cbrown@zlk.com URBAN INTELLIGENCE: Asencio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Carmelo Reynoso Asencio and Gustavo Santos, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. URBAN INTELLIGENCE, INC. d/b/a URBAN UMBRELLA, Case No. 1:24-cv-07739 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"). The Defendants unlawfully paid Plaintiffs on a semi-monthly basis that failed to provide them with overtime pay for hours worked over forty per workweek. The Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiffs with accurate wage notices at the time of their hiring and accurate wage statements at the end of each pay period., says the complaint. The Plaintiffs regularly worked up to eighty hours per workweek as construction workers at Urban Umbrella. Urban Umbrella is a scaffolding company in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. Camille A. Sanchez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue – 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 583-9500 Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com sanchez@pechmanlaw.com VIRTUE LABS: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Virtue Labs, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09917 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Nepenthes America provides to their non-disabled customers through https://Virtuelabs.com (hereinafter "Virtuelabs.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Virtuelabs.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Virtue Labs' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Virtue Labs provides to the public a website known as Virtuelabs.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view shampoos, conditioners, hair masks, styling creams, serums, oils, and treatment products designed to repair, strengthen, and enhance hair health.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Wright Suit Over Defective Braking System ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT WRIGHT, JACQUELINE WRIGHT, JENNIFER SEGARINI, CATHERINE WILSON, EDWARD NORRIS, EDWARD PISHCHIK, and WAMIDH JAWAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02171 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendant designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased 2021-2024 Atlas and/or Atlas Cross Sport vehicles equipped with defective braking system. The Plaintiffs bring this case individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons ("Class Members") who purchased or leased Volkswagen's 2021-2024 Atlas and/or Atlas Cross Sport vehicles that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold or leased by the Defendant or the Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates. The Defendant knew or should have known that the Vehicles have one or more defects manifesting when the brakes are applied during ordinary and intended use, including (1) a loud, high-pitched squealing, squeaking, or screeching noise (the "Squealing Defect"), (2) a loud, grinding, scraping noise of metal rubbing on metal which is occasionally accompanied by a vibrating and scraping sensation that can be felt through the brake pedal (the "Grinding Defect"), (3) an activation of the Vehicle's proximity alert resulting from the Squealing and/or Grinding Defects despite there being no objects within the Vehicle's immediate vicinity (the "Proximity Alert Defect"), and/or (4) slipping, "spongy," "grabby," and otherwise inconsistent braking (the "Erratic Function Defect"). The Brake Defect is dangerous because it causes Vehicle drivers to disregard sounds and symptoms which are typically affiliated with deteriorating and ineffective brakes. Thus, if Plaintiffs and Class Members accept what they are told by the Defendant and VW dealerships when they present the Brake Defect—that it is "normal operation"—they are deprived of the typical warning signs related to deteriorating brakes, namely squealing, grinding, and erratic function, alleges the lawsuit. Furthermore, the Brake Defect distracts Class Members, other Vehicle drivers, and third parties on the road, endangering their physical safety and well-being due to a loss of concentration and focus while driving. Volkswagen breached its express warranties to repair defects in materials and workmanship of any part supplied by Volkswagen. Volkswagen has not repaired, and has been unwilling to reasonably repair, the Brake Defect, the lawsuit added. Plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Wright are California citizens who live in Menifee, in Riverside County, California. The Wrights purchased a 2023 Atlas. Volkswagen was engaged in the business of importing, advertising, marketing, distributing, warranting, servicing, repairing and selling automobiles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Leland H. Belew, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. Mitchell Breit, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 224-8685 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com astraus@milberg.com mbreit@milberg.com WELLS FARGO: Brickman Investments Sues Over Unlawful Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------ Brickman Investments Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO CLEARING SERVICES, LLC dba WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07751 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to Wells Fargo's Bank Deposit Sweep Program ("Sweep Program"), which transferred idle customer cash into interest-bearing "cash sweep" accounts. Under the Sweep Program, WFA swept customers' idle cash deposits into separate accounts that were highly lucrative for Defendants and their affiliate banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants used the Sweep Program to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers. The Defendants made materially misleading statements and omissions to customers about the Sweep Program, including statements that Defendants were negotiating "reasonable" interest rates on behalf of customers when in fact they were working with affiliated banks to pay unreasonably low interest rates. The Defendants' material statements and omissions regarding the Sweep Program, and use of the Sweep Program to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers, violated federal law including the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute"), and breaches of their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to customers. Accordingly, Defendants' Sweep Program has come under federal regulatory scrutiny, forcing them to take corrective actions. In October 2023, Defendants disclosed that their cash sweep practices were under investigation by the SEC. In July 2024, Defendants announced that they were in discussions to resolve the SEC investigation and were changing the Sweep Program to pay customers higher interest rates, resulting in an estimated loss of $350 million in Wells Fargo's annual revenue, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a customer of WFA whose funds were transferred to cash sweep accounts under the Sweep Program. Wells Fargo is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 - and - Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP 450 7th Ave 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 Phone: 212/279-505 [*] Court Approves Class Settlement on Car Dealers Hidden Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Long of CTV News Montreal reports that almost half-a-million Quebecers could be eligible for a credit after a class action lawsuit settlement was approved by a Quebec judge over car dealerships that charged hidden fees. In the suit, 220 Quebec new and used car dealers were accused of charging their customers nearly $300 million in hidden fees. A settlement agreement involving 150 of those dealerships was approved by the Superior Court of Quebec on Oct. 8. "They had bought vehicles, and they ended up paying more than had been announced to them prior to purchasing the vehicles in question," said articling student Philippe Brault with Lambert Avocats. The Automobile Protection Association's George Iny said the hidden costs were bogus. "Definitely illegal retailing practices," he said. "[You] can call it a scam. It's definitely illegal retailing practices that should be punished. And it got out of hand. The regulators really weren't able to do it. And it created this opportunity for a law firm to take a suit." Brault said the law firm was contacted by several buyers who were hit with sticker shock when they bought a car. "At the end of the transaction they actually ended up paying hundreds or thousands more for the vehicle than what was announced previously," he said. Brault added that some dealerships named in the suit claim they charged the fees because their competitors did, but Lambert Avocats argue that that doesn't make it legal. The law firm's website has the long list of car dealers to see if you might be eligible for a $75 credit(opens in a new tab). Iny said that the credit per client isn't much, but the dealerships also have to pay legal fees and he estimates that to total around $5 million. "They probably each have anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000," said Iny. Brault estimates that up to 500,000 Quebecers may be eligible for a credit. There is also the condition in the settlement that hidden fees are eliminated. "Every dealership that's part of this agrees to stop charging such fees without exposing them to people before," said Brault. Those looking to find out if they are entitled to a credit can visit the law firm's website. [GN] [24]7.AI INC: Jarrett Suit Seeks Final OK of Settlement Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIANNA JARRETT and MARY NGETHE individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. [24]7.AI, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00677-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 26, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., will request entry of an order: (1) certifying a class for settlement purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and certifying a FLSA collective for settlement purposes under 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. (as defined in the Parties' Settlement Agreement); (2) finally approving the Parties' Settlement Agreement; (3) appointing Plaintiffs Adrianna Jarrett and Mary Ngethe as Class Representatives for the Class/Collective and Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel; and (4) awarding fees to the third-party Settlement Administrator Atticus Administration, LLC. This is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and common law wage-and-hour hybrid collective/class action. The Plaintiffs have settled this litigation for the gross settlement amount of $1,100,000 on behalf of approximately 3,983 hourly, non-exempt customer service representatives engaged by the Defendant. Under the Settlement Agreement, "Class Members" are defined as: (i) all non-exempt customer service representatives ("CSRs") engaged by Defendant during the Class Period,1 as follows: (i) the 848 non-exempt CSRs, including Plaintiffs, who joined this Action by submitting opt-in consent forms following Court approval of pre-discovery conditional certification in this Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) ("Collective Opt- in(s)"); and (ii) all non-exempt CSRs who were engaged by Defendant during the Class Period (estimated at 3,133 individuals by the Parties) but who did not submit opt-in consent forms during the pre-discovery conditional certification period. ("Rule 23 Member(s)")." Further, "Settlement Class Members" are defined as: (i) the Collective Opt-Ins (i.e., the 848 non-exempt CSRs, including Plaintiffs, who joined this Action by submitting opt-in consent forms following Court approval of pre-discovery conditional certification in this Action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)); and (ii) the 3,133 non-exempt CSRs who were engaged by Defendant during the Class Period who do not timely file Opt Out Requests and consent to the terms of the Settlement by negotiating checks in the gross amount of their Individual Settlement Payments. [24]7.AI, Inc. provides cloud-based customer engagement solutions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uhFWqZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin J, Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 746-4001 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon to Pay $24.4MM to Mesothelioma Victim ----------------------------------------------------------- Travis Rodgers writing for Mesotholemia Center reports that a jury has awarded the family of a Chicago area mesothelioma survivor a $24.4 million verdict. The lawsuit named Avon Products, Inc. the defendant and alleged it processed and manufactured talc products contaminated with asbestos, causing Cipriano Ramirez’s exposure. Ramirez worked as a janitor at Avon’s manufacturing facility in Morton Grove, Illinois in the 1980s. He was diagnosed with pleural mesothelioma in 2023. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cimbar Performance Loses $39MM Mesothelioma Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald V. Miller, Jr., writing for lawsuit-information-center.com reports that a Boston jury awarded $39 million to a man who developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos through medical talc powder. The lawsuit claimed that during a 2014 pleurodesis procedure, talcum powder supplied by Cimbar Performance Minerals was injected into the patient's chest and allegedly contained asbestos fibers. Seven years later, the patient was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a rare and incurable cancer caused by asbestos exposure. The verdict included $21.5 million for anticipated future pain and suffering, making it a landmark case linking medical talc to asbestos-related mesothelioma. ********* 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 ***