/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241021.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 21, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 211
Headlines
230FA LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Bartenders, Peden Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: Tavel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
AB CAPITAL: All Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge
ACCENT CONTROLS: Leander Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
AJAS ENTERPRISES: Osborn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AMAZON.COM INC: Carlisle Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek May 1, 2025, Class Cert Bid Filing
ANGELS AROUND: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ASKARI SECURITY: Hobson Sues to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
AXIS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murillo Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Nov. 8 Class Cert Bid Filing
BANTA MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Imbarrato Gets Final Nod
BED BATH: Si Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial
BENCHMARK SERVICES: Farrell Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Status
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Appendix
BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Harris
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Davis Plaintiffs Seeks Class Certification
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Robles Says
CASA DEL SOL: Morgan Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
COMPASS GROUP: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Mehlberg Claims
CORNERSTONE FIRST: Shakoor Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Loan Officers
CRESCA CORP: Vargas Seeks to Certify Class of Puerto Ricans
D'USSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says
DAILY HARVEST: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification
DARWIN HOMES: Cunningham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
DEXCOM INC: Oakland County Employees Sue Over Securities Law Breach
ECOSHIELD PEST: Denies Ex-Convicts Job Employment, Mims Suit Says
FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
FCA US: Marble Bid to Certify Utah Class Denied
FIREBOLT ANALYTICS: Milito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
FIREWORKS SOFTWARE: Pacheco Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed
GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Gomes
GORDON LANE: Parrish Seeks Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
GREEN SOLUTIONS: Weaver Seeks Extension of Certain Deadlines
HORIZON PAYMENTS: Thompson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC: Nelson Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Makeup Removing Wipes, Bridges Says
KANSAS STAR: Perry Suit Seeks Table Games Dealers' Unpaid Wages
KENDO HOLDINGS: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Radvansky Suit
KOHL'S INC: Martinez Sues Over Compromised Info of Customers
KROGER CO: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 20
LANOLIPS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Reid Says
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Reply
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Utah Class Denied in Gearshift Suit
MDL 3126: 47 Data Breach Row Suits Consolidated in Montana Court
MIDLAND FUNDING: Fact Discovery Due Feb. 1, 2025
MORGAN STANLEY: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Safron Suit Says
MULTIPLAN INC: Noble Alleges Health Insurance Market Conspiracy
NARIFURI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Raheel Says
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Pryor Slams Collegiate Sports Market Monopoly
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Oct. 30
NORRONA SPORT: Martinez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
NORTH CAROLINA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
OHM THEORY: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Hedges Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Class Cert Bid Modified to March 7, 2025
PHARMACENTRA LLC: Maze Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages of CSRs
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Loses Bid for Protective Order
PLATINUM LEAF: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Allowed Leave to File Portions of Appendix
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to Nov. 6
RED TOOLBOX: Garden Toys Not Safe for Children, McArther Claims
RESA POWER LLC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SADDLERIDGE HOLDINGS: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
SCALE AI INC: Ramey Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
SENDWELL INC: Champion Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
SH GROUP HOTELS: Hurt Suit Removed to C.D. California
SHOPIFY (USA): Lazares Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
SIPARADIGM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Milbauer Says
SLIM CD INC: Murray Sues Over Private Data Breach
SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Due Jan. 8, 2025
SMG FOOD: Parties Seek Jan. 8, 2025 Deadline for Class Cert Filing
SOLO FUNDS: Cofield Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices
SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaydar Class Suit Consolidated with Park Case
SOUTH MARINE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Muongkhot Suit Claims
SPIRE GLOBAL INC: Tagawa Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
SUNRISE BUS: Charles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SUPER MICRO: Norfolk Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop
SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION: Corzine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Oct. 22
TRICIDA INC: Klaerner Must Produce Documents by Nov. 15
UNITED AIRLINES: Vaccine Mandate Violates Rights, Reinauer Alleges
UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS: Murphy Sue Over Website's Barriers
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Sessoms Says
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Quinn Says
WELLS FARGO: Chakravarthy Sues Over Exploitative and Unfair Acts
WELLSPAN HEALTH: Tomassone Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
WILLIAM KEITH MAXWELL: Stutzman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
ZARBEE'S INC: Lopez Can File Reply Until Dec. 20
ZF COLLECTIVE: Lorenzo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees
ZUFFA LLC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Authority Notice
*********
230FA LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Bartenders, Peden Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY PEDEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 230FA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07754
(S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay timely wages, failure
to pay wages, and failure to pay all earned tips.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a bartender from
about November 12, 2021, through July 2023.
230FA LLC is the owner and operator of 230 Fifth restaurant located
at 5th Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Jocelyn Small, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA P.C.
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 499-9100
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
jsmall@kesslermatura.com
3M COMPANY: Tavel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Tavel, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05874-RMG (N.D. Ala., Aug.
20, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during their employment as
a
military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with kidney
cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Phone: 205-879-5000
Facsimile: 205-879-5901
AB CAPITAL: All Discovery Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re AB Capital LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-02178-PA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered
a standing order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant
to
Local Rule 5-3.1.
-- Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this
Court,
including all status and settlement conferences.
-- All discovery matters have been referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes.
-- Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the
determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a Proposed
Order
setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement
of
the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yniFkL at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACCENT CONTROLS: Leander Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YUKA LEANDER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ACCENT CONTROLS, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CU009683C, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on October 9, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-01821-GPC-SBC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' violations of California Labor
Code including minimum wage violations, failure to pay all overtime
wages, meal period violations, rest period violations, paid sick
leave violations, unpaid vacation wages, untimely payment of wages,
wage statement violations, waiting time violations, and failure to
reimburse.
Accent Controls, Inc. is a turnkey automation system integrator,
logistics and government services firm based in Missouri. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashton M. Riley, Esq.
Tuan Q. Nguyen, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-2424
Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
Email: ariley@fisherphillips.com
tqnguyen@fisherphillips.com
AJAS ENTERPRISES: Osborn Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO OSBORN, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AJAS ENTERPRISES, INC., (dba) THE FISH
GRILL, a Florida Profit Corporation and JOSEPH LEWIS MAGGI,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-61875-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
October 8, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a "cook" from approximately
February 2, 2023, through September 19, 2024. Allegedly, the
Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff, and putative class
member non-exempt restaurant employees to work more than 40 hours
per work week without receiving proper overtime pay. Among other
things, the Defendants failed to establish, maintain and preserve
accurate timesheet and payroll records as required by the FLSA,
says the suit.
Ajas Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a full-service restaurant
in Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah E. Storch, Esq.
RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (866) 344-9243
Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Carlisle Appeals Summary Judgment to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA CARLISLE is taking an appeal from a court order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the lawsuit entitled Teresa Carlisle, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-06856-RFL,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, is brought against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California
Business and Professions Code and for breach of written contract.
On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On July 3, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment, which the Court
granted as to the first and third causes of action. The Court
remanded the second cause of action to the Superior Court of
California for the County of Alameda. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was denied as moot.
The appellate case filed on October 3, 2024, is captioned Carlisle
v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6022, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 8,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 12, 2024;
and
-- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 12,
2024. [BN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek May 1, 2025, Class Cert Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELLE MARTINHO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No.
4:22-cv-06849-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order that:
1. The last day to complete private mediation shall be continued
from Oct. 25, 2024 to March 1, 2025.
2. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
shall be continued from Dec. 30, 2024 to May 1, 2025.
3. The last day to file Amazon's opposition to any motion for
class
certification shall be continued from Feb. 10, 2025 to June
12,
2025.
4. The last day to file Plaintiff's reply to Amazon's opposition
to
any motion for class certification shall be July 11, 2025.
5. The class certification hearing shall be continued from March
25, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. to July 22, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahC84h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 S Figueroa St Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley J. Hamburger, Esq.
Lauren M. Blas, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: BHamburger@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
MCooney@gibsondunn.com
ANGELS AROUND: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Lee, individually, and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated current and former employees v. ANGELS AROUND
THE CLOCK HOME CARE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02758 (W.D. Tenn., Oct.
14, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiff and other similarly situated caregivers.
The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for all hours worked over 80 within
bi-weekly pay periods at one and one-half rimes their regular
hourly rate of pay. The Defendant has had a common policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated
for all their overtime hours worked either by a failure to record
such overtime hours into its time keeping system or editing-out
such overtime hours from its time keeping system, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid
caregivers.
Angels Around The Clock Home Care, Inc., is a home care provider in
Memphis, Tennessee and the surrounding area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
ASKARI SECURITY: Hobson Sues to Recover Unpaid and Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lavertis R. Hobson and Christian Osuna, as individuals, and on
behalf of all similarly situated employees v. ASKARI SECURITY
SERVICES, INC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24NVVCV03623
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought for
violations of the California Labor code and the Private Attorneys
General Act for recovery of unpaid wages and overtime.
The Plaintiffs seeks relief against Defendants for their: failure
to pay all wages due, including regular and overtime wages; failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to reimburse
for necessary business expenses; failure to provide meal periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof; and failure to pay wages due upon
termination of employment.
The Defendants have consistently maintained and enforced the
following unlawful policies and practices against its workforce by:
Willfully refusing to pay all hours worked, including both regular
and overtime wages; Willfully refusing to furnish accurate itemized
wage statements upon payment of wages; Willfully refusing to
reimburse necessary business expenses; Willfully refusing to
provide timely uninterrupted meal and rest periods or compensation
in lieu thereof; and Willfully refusing to pay all wages due upon
separation of employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security guards.
Askari Security Services, Inc.is in the business of security
services throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
John A. Young, Esq.
MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
Long Beach, CA 90802
Phone: (562) 590-5550
Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
jyoung@mahoney-law.net
AXIS HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Murillo Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JERSON MURILLO, and MARVIN MURILLO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. AXIS HOSPITALITY
CONSTRUCTION, LLC; UPLAND HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC; and VARGAS DEMO
AND PAINT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01764 (E.D. Va.,
October 4, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the
Virginia Overtime Wage Act.
The Plaintiffs consist of current and former laborers, finishers,
demolishers, painters, or similar positions, who work or worked for
Defendants in the United States and are or were compensated on an
hourly basis. Throughout the relevant period, the Defendants have
maintained practices of failing to compensate for all time worked
and for all overtime compensation due to them for all hours worked
over 40 each workweek at the appropriate overtime rate, say the
Plaintiffs.
Axis Hospitality Construction LLC is a hotel renovation company
servicing clients across the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Parties Seek Nov. 8 Class Cert Bid Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to issue a
modified scheduling order as to class certification briefing as
follows:
Event Previous Date New Date
Motion for class certification and Oct. 15, 2024 Nov. 8,
2024
service of supporting expert
Opposition to class certification Jan. 27, 2025 Feb. 20,
2025
and service of supporting expert
reports
Reply in support of class March 20, 2025 April 14,
2025
certification motion and service
of rebuttal expert reports
Hearing on motion for class To be set by To be set
by
certification the Court the Court
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, and online banking.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NsCnsf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
Shana Khader, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Cort Carlson, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
gchappell@tzlegal.com
skhader@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ccarlson@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq.
Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
apavel@omm.com
BANTA MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in Imbarrato Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK IMBARRATO on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANTA
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., BANTA BWW MDT, LLC, GEORGE E. BANTA,
SR., and GEORGE E. BANTA, JR., Case No. 7:18-cv-05422-NSR-JCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman entered an order granting
the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement:
1. The Court also certifies the proposed class under Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 23(e) (the "Class") for settlement purposes.
4. For the purposes of settlement, the Court finds that the
Classes
meet the requirements for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 23(a) and (b)(3).
5. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
in
the amount of $550,000.00, which is 33.3% of the settlement.
The
fee award is justified by the work that Class Counsel did
negotiating the settlement and conducting the litigation, the
ultimate recovery, and the risk that Class Counsel undertook
in
bringing the claims.
6. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for costs in the
amount
of $17,866.88. 9. The Court approves $13,750.00 in
administrative costs to Rust Consulting, Ltd.
Banta Management operates as a real estate company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HMlOXo at no extra
charge.[CC]
BED BATH: Si Seeks Reconsideration of Class Cert Denial
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SI v. BED BATH & BEYOND
CORPORATION et al. (RE BED BATH & BEYOND CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-02541-TNM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order to reconsider its Sept. 27, 2024,
Order denying Class Certification to address three discrete errors:
First, the Order neglected to assess predominance for claims raised
under Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Reliance
is not necessary for this claim. Cohen did not challenge the
Section 20A claims in his opposition, and Prof. Fischel did not
contest Dr. Matthew Cain's (“Cain”) opinions on damages for
this claim.
Second, both experts agreed that Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. securities
had a statistically significant decline in stock price after news
of Cohen's exit was revealed on Aug. 18, 2022. The law does not
require Bratya to show any front-end price impact. A statistically
significant back-end decline is sufficient to show both market
efficiency under the fifth Cammer factor, as well as price impact
under Supreme Court precedent.
Third, the Order's finding that the decline was "[m]ore likely"
"caused" by Cohen's act of liquidation rather than the market
learning concealed information, Order at 42 (emphasis added), is
both legally premature and factually unsupportable.
Fourth, the Order’s finding on short-selling constraints
contradicts the evidentiary record. For all of these reasons,
Bratya respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for
Reconsideration.
Bed Bath & Beyond was an American big-box retail chain specializing
in housewares, furniture, and specialty items.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ipNpV1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
Omar Jafri, Esq.
Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
Genc Arifi, Esq.
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com
ojafri@pomlaw.com
ctourek@pomlaw.com
garifi@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Yitzchak E. Soloveichik, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
soloveichik@bgandg.com
eitank@bgandg.com
- and -
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Jan E. Messerschmidt, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
jmesserschmidt@cohenmilstein.com
BENCHMARK SERVICES: Farrell Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hyun Farrell v. Benchmark
Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04494-LDH-LB (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order that:
1. Leave to conduct Class Certification
and damages related discovery, including third-party
discovery
as necessary;
2. Plaintiff be provided 120 days to conduct Class
Certification and damages related discovery;
3. the Court reserves jurisdiction on the issue of damages and
to otherwise reserve ruling on a final damages determination;
and
4. The Plaintiff be permitted to seek a default judgment, both
as
to the individual Plaintiff and the putative Classes, within
45
days after completion of Class Certification and damages
discovery.
Because Benchmark refused to respond to the Complaint or otherwise
participate in this litigation, Plaintiff has been prevented from
conducting discovery. In addition, due to the anonymous nature of
the calls, Plaintiff has not yet identified the entity that placed
the outbound calls. Plaintiff, however, suspects that its subpoenas
will yield fruitful results. Thus, the Court should allow Plaintiff
sufficient additional time to engage in discovery.
Because the Court must evaluate the measure of statutory damages
entitled to the Classes and Ms. Farrell individually, it is
appropriate for the Court to permit additional discovery and
ultimately conduct a hearing as necessary to conduct an accounting
prior to entering judgment.
On June 25, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant. In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts one
claim under the TCPA. The claim is for violation of the TCPA's
prohibition against making prerecorded or artificial voice calls to
cellular telephones without the called party's consent. The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed wrong number,
prerecorded debt collection calls to her cellular telephone
number.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6S7RUs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Javier L. Merino, Esq.
DANNLAW
1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Parties Seek to Seal Portions of Appendix
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASMINE WILLIAMS, et al.,
v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FMO-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
the ex parte application to seal portions of the parties' joint
appendix regarding class certification motion.
On Oct. 27, 2022, the Court entered the parties' Joint Stipulated
Protective Order.
The action is likely to involve law enforcement records for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted.
Beverly Hills is located in the middle of Los Angeles County.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A4SIYh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley C. Gage, Esq.
Milad Sadr, Esq.
BRAD GAGE LAW, APC
23002 Victory Boulevard
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 340-9252
Facsimile: (818) 340-9088
E-mail: brad@bradgagelaw.com
milad@bradgagelaw.com
- and -
Benjamin Crump, Esq.
BEN CRUMP LAW FIRM
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
E-mail: Court@BenCrump.com
- and -
Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
THE SPENCER LAW FIRM, INC.
2 Venture, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 240-8595
Facsimile: (949) 377-3272
E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan E. Sullivan, Esq.
Arthur J. Reliford, Esq.
Andrew A. Lothson, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-9100
Facsimile: (312) 321-0990
- and -
Jeanne L. Tollison, Esq.
WALSWORTH LLP
19900 MacArthur Blvd Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (714) 634-2522
BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris, v. City of
Bloomington et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01417-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=63wfiT at no extra
charge.[CC]
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Davis Plaintiffs Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT DAVIS, DR. BRUCE
BARTON, and RESHARD SNELLINGS on behalf of themselves and the
Putative Class, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
2:19-cv-19650-MEF-AME (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order granting class certification and appointing Nagel Rice, LLP
as Class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
BMW of North America offers vehicle accessories and interior and
exterior parts, apparel and accessories.
A copy the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDd4hg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Robles Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPRI HOLDINGS 2 LLC d/b/a BUDR CANNABIS,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07658 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 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.budrcannabis.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.
Capri Holdings 2 LLC, doing business as Budr Cannabis, 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
CASA DEL SOL: Morgan Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
PARADISE MORGAN, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. CASA DEL SOL SPIRITS
CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07534 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024)
is a civil rights action against Casa Del Sol for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website through
www.casadelsoltequila.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 Morgan has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase
on casadelsoltequila.com, most recently on September 10, 2024;
September 15, 2024; and September 19, 2024, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. These access barriers have caused the website to be
inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and
visually-impaired persons. Amongst other access barriers
experienced, Plaintiff was unable to make an online purchase of the
Blanco Tequila and the Reposado Tequila.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Casa Del Sol'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.
Casa Del Sol Spirits Co. operates the website that offers various
flavors of tequila products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
COMPASS GROUP: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Mehlberg Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD L. MEHLBERG and ANGELA R. DEIBEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMPASS
GROUP USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04179-WJE (W.D. Mo.,
October 9, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Employee Benefit Plan of
the Compass Group USA, Inc. does not provide the required
reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed
to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an
alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the
Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination
provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use
tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona
fide wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the
unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, Compass Group
enriched itself at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it
receiving a windfall, says the suit.
Compass Group USA, Inc. is a foodservice and support services
company, with its principal place of business in North Carolina.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@steuvesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
CORNERSTONE FIRST: Shakoor Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Loan Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL SHAKOOR-DELGADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE FIRST MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01811-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 9,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages and failure to reimburse business
expenses in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a loan officer
from November 2021 through November 2023 and then again from
February 2024 through the present.
Cornerstone First Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage bank with its
principal place of business in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob N. Whitehead, Esq.
W EMPLOYMENT LAW, APC
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 674-4922
Email: jacob@wemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
CRESCA CORP: Vargas Seeks to Certify Class of Puerto Ricans
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ORTIZ VARGAS, v.
CRESCA CORPORATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-01196-PAD (D.P.R.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the class
defined as:
"all natural persons with a Puerto Rico address, who were sent
a
letter in the form represented by Exhibit A, on or after a
date
one year prior to the filing of this action; and on or before
a
date 20 days after the filing of the present complaint."
The Counsel has invested hundreds of hours prosecuting claims on
behalf of Class members, prosecuting motions to compel, have
aggressively pursued class discovery and achieved a summary
judgment determination in favor of its client.
Accordingly, the submit that the attorneys can be trusted to
perform their responsibilities adequately in light of that
experience, the record to date in this case, and related
considerations.
CRESCA has identified no less than one hundred fourteen (114)
individuals who received the Demand Letter, which was the object of
this Court's adjudication of liability, during the time-frame
mentioned above.
The Plaintiff alleged, and this Court has determined, that the
Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA")
by engaging in unlawful and deceptive collection practices, in
violation of Section 1692e(3) of the FDCPA.
The Plaintiff's claim arises out of the mailing of a certain debt
collection letter dated July 26, 2021.
The Plaintiff is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
married, of legal age, with residence in the municipality of Toa
Alta.
Cresca is a collection agency that utilizes the instrumentalities
of Interstate commerce to conduct the business of collecting
debts.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TMfbrY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos A. Ortiz Morales, Esq.
Jesus E. Batista Sánchez, Esq.
THE BATISTA LAW GROUP, PSC.
San Juan, PR. 00919
Telephone: (787) 620-2856
Facsimile: (787) 777-1589
E-mail: comlaw@gmail.com
jeb@batistasanchez.com
D'USSE LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Bunting Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'USSE LLC and BACARDI U.S.A.,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 527027/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty.,
October 4, 2024) is a civil rights action against Defendants for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website, www.Dusse.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State
Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Bunting has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase
on Dusse.com, most recently on September 2, 2024; September 5,
2024; and September 18, 2024, but was unable to do so independently
because of the many access barriers on Defendants' website. He
asserts that website contains access barriers that prevent free and
full use by blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading
software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not
limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down
menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting
and labeling, the denial of keyboard access, empty links that
contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the
same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
D'Usse's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to
compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
D'Usse LLC markets alcoholic beverages.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
DAILY HARVEST: Settlement Class Gets Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Breeanne Buckley Peni,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Daily Harvest, Inc. and Second Bite Foods, Inc., d/b/a "Stone Gate
Foods," Smirk's Ltd., and Molinos Asociados Sac, Case No.
1:22-cv-05443-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an
order granting final approval of settlement.
The Court conditionally certifies the Settlement Class:
"All persons in the United States (including its territories)
who
purchased, received, or consumed French Lentil + Leek Crumbles
and
directly suffered personal injuries caused by consumption of the
Crumbles, and all persons in the United States (including
territories) who suffered consequential monetary damages arising
from or related to another persons' personal injuries arising
from
consumption of the Crumbles."
Daily Harvest offers smoothies, overnight oats, flatbreads, chia
parfaits, sundaes, and soups.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zGUE5R at no extra
charge.[CC]
DARWIN HOMES: Cunningham Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiana Cunningham, Jacob Naasz, and Stephanea White, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARWIN HOMES,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01233 (W.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought
to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages, other unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").
The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated performed
residential leasing and were not paid time and one-half for all
hours they worked over 40 in a workweek ("overtime compensation")
and/or minimum wages. the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated regularly worked over 40 hours in a week while employed by
Defendant but were not paid time and one half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's
policy and/or practice was to not pay Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 in a week as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employed by the Defendant as leasing
agents.
Darwin is one of the largest providers of single-family rental
homes in the United States, with rental homes in at least 26
markets across at least 15 states.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
Houston, TX 77056
Phone: (713) 528-4455
Email: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com
DEXCOM INC: Oakland County Employees Sue Over Securities Law Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM and OAKLAND COUNTY
VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES' BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEXCOM,
INC., KEVIN R. SAYER, JEREME M. SYLVAIN, and SEAN CHRISTENSEN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01804-AJB-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 8,
2024), seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of a "Class" of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired DexCom
securities between April 28, 2023 and July 25, 2024, inclusive.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors by failing to disclose that: (a) DexCom’s sales
force expansion strategy was causing slow customer growth; (b)
DexCom's sales force expansion strategy was undermining
relationships with durable medical equipment (DME) distributors,
its largest sales channel, leading to lower-margin revenue; (c)
DexCom's deteriorating relationships with DME distributors were
causing the Company to lose significant market share to
competitors; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Dexcom's Class
Period statements about its business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading. As a result of these materially false
and misleading statements and omissions, DexCom stock traded at
artificially high prices during the Class Period, say the
Plaintiffs.
Headquartered in San Diego, CA, DexCom is a medical device company
that manufactures continuous glucose monitoring systems for
diabetes management. During the Class Period, the DexCom's common
stock traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol
"DXCM. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
Guillaume Buell, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
gbuell@labaton.com
- and -
Aaron L. Castle, Esq.
VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY P.C.
79 Alfred Street
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-1200
Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
E-mail: acastle@vmtlaw.com
ECOSHIELD PEST: Denies Ex-Convicts Job Employment, Mims Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BERNARD MIMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECOSHIELD PEST SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03885-ECT-ECW (D. Minn., October 10, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged illegal hiring
practices. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was denied or
not fairly considered by the Defendant for employment because of
his prior criminal background. The Defendant's policy of not hiring
any persons with a prior conviction constitutes unlawful
discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
EcoShield Pest Solutions Inc. is a provider of extermination and
pest control services, headquartered in Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
FAVORITE WORLD: Minor Suit Seeks to Continue Class Cert Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA
AYANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court ex parte for
orders:
(1) setting a date certain by when Defendant is required to make
their declarants available for deposition,
(2) extending the time for Plaintiffs to file their Reply in
support of Motion for Class Certification to three court
days
following the completion of Defendant’s declarant
witnesses,
and
(3) continuing the hearing date on Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification until 14 or more days after the filing
deadline
for Plaintiffs' reply.
This Notice of Application and Application is made on the grounds
that extraordinary relief is required in order to ensure that
Plaintiffs be provided the opportunity to cross examine Defendant's
witnesses who submitted declarations in support of Defendant's
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Good cause exists for granting ex parte relief because Defendant's
heavily relied on the testimony of their declarants in opposing
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and as a basis to object
to Plaintiffs' expert report. Critically, the redacted versions of
these declarations were filed and served on Oct. 7, 2024, and
unredacted versions were not served on Plaintiffs' counsel until
Oct. 8, 2024.
Plaintiffs' Reply deadline is currently October 11, 2024—only 4
days from the filing of the Opposition and 3 days from the service
of the unredacted declarations—since the hearing date is Oct. 28,
2024 and because Oct. 14, 2024 is a federal holiday. The current
briefing schedule does not allow Plaintiffs the time needed to
complete these depositions before Plaintiffs' reply is due.
The Plaintiffs provided notice of the instant ex parte application,
pursuant to Local Rule 7-19.1 and the Court's Standing Order.
Defendant's Counsel responded in writing, stating that they will
oppose he requested ex parte relief on the grounds that Plaintiff
has the opportunity to depose Defendant's declarant Silvera before
the Plaintiff's filed their Motion for Class Certification, and (2)
that additional time to depose a rebuttal expert prior to reply on
Plaintiffs' class certification is not warranted.
Favorite Brands distributes alcoholic beverages.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpaoEZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brandon Brouillette, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-763
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
FCA US: Marble Bid to Certify Utah Class Denied
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREVOR MARBLE, v. FCA US,
LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-10983-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge
David Lawson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motions to
certify a Utah class and his motion for summary judgment.
The Court further entered an order that counsel for the parties
shall appear for a status conference on October 24, 2024, at 2:30
p.m. to discuss a further case management schedule.
The plaintiff has failed to establish that common issues would
predominate over adjudication of the individualized pre-sale
knowledge affirmative defense at a prospective trial. Fact issues
preclude a determination of liability in favor of either party as a
matter of law.
The plaintiffs alleged that studies conducted in 2010 and 2012 by
the defendant’s retained market research firm, which were
replicated during this litigation by the plaintiffs' human factors
expert, suggested that the gear shift design "is defective because
it inhibits reliable gear selection and provides insufficient
tactile or audible feedback to allow drivers to readily and
confidently shift to their intended gear."
The plaintiffs alleged that the June 24, 2016, software fix
announced by FCA was ineffective, and there were numerous reports
logged by NHTSA of vehicles having rollaway accidents after the fix
was applied.
On December 9, 2019, after a lengthy discovery period, the Court
issued an opinion conditionally certifying a common issues class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YkeLMm
at no extra charge.[CC]
FIREBOLT ANALYTICS: Milito Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOHN MILITO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FIREBOLT ANALYTICS, INC. and DOES
1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No.
24-00002-20272-2, was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of Washington in and for the County of King to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington on October 11, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01667 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged use of job postings
that do not include the wage scales or salary ranges to be offered
to hired applicants.
Firebolt Analytics, Inc. is a data software company doing business
in Washington. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Breanne Martell, Esq.
Derek A. Bishop, Esq.
Brian Rho, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
One Union Square
600 University Street, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-3300
Facsimile: (206) 447-6965
Email: bsmartell@littler.com
debishop@littler.com
brho@littler.com
FIREWORKS SOFTWARE: Pacheco Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
GIOVANNI PACHECO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIREWORKS SOFTWARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05397 (E.D. Pa., October 8, 2024)
arises from Defendant's recent data breach resulting from its
failure to implement reasonable and industry standard data security
practices.
The Plaintiff's and similarly situated individuals' private
information was unlawfully accessed during the data breach that
occurred between June 23, 2024, and June 26, 2024. However, the
Plaintiff received Defendant's data breach notice letter, which was
dated September 17, 2024 and was advising Plaintiff that his name,
Social Security number, date of birth, and Alien Registration
Number were impacted in 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 third-party beneficiary contract,
and (iii) unjust enrichment.
Based in Wayne, PA, Fireworks Software, Inc. is a software company
that provides customer relationship management services to higher
education institutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: Bid for Partial Summary Judgment Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malaika Washington, et
al., v. Freedom of Expression LLC, et al., Case No.
2:21-cv-01318-MTL (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Michael Liburdi
entered an order:
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on
liability;
-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to strike;
-- denying Defendants' revised motion for summary judgment; and
-- denying Defendants' motion to strike.
In sum, three factors favor an employment relationship while three
present a genuine issue of material fact. Because no single factor
is dispositive, and the remaining disputed factors could sway the
analysis in either direction, summary judgment is inappropriate for
either party.
There remains a genuine issue of material fact on three factors,
and the other three weight in favor of an employment relationship.
The Court rejects Defendants' argument as trying to make the
Performer Lease Agreement conclusive—an outcome specifically
forsworn in Driscoll.
The Plaintiffs are a group of twenty-two former dancers of Bones
Cabaret and Skin Cabaret who allege minimum wage violations under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jpn9eH at no extra
charge.[CC]
GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Strikes Class Allegations in Gomes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramona Romes, v. Garrison
Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00176-SMB
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order granting
Defendant's motion to strike or dismiss the Plaintiff's class
allegations, in part, as to the class allegations relating to the
breach of contract claim, declaratory relief, and injunctive
relief.
Therefore, the Court finds Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is not
satisfied and further discovery would only emphasize this case is
incapable of class-wide resolution because of the individualized
proof required for a potential class member to prove harm. The
Court will strike those allegations.
The Plaintiff was involved in a car accident where she alleges
sustaining physical, emotional, and economic injuries that entitle
her to damages, including reasonable and necessary medical expenses
exceeding $30,000, lost wages $15,681.82, and hedonic damages equal
to or exceeding $200,000. The party at fault's insurer paid the
applicable policy limit of $100,000 for Plaintiff's injuries.
The Plaintiff thereafter filed the instant Complaint, alleging she
is entitled to the full damages, rather than Defendant's reduced
amounts, and seeks to represent a class of:
"All persons insured under Defendant USAA policies issued in
Arizona where the person made an uninsured and/or underinsured
motorist claim and Defendant USAA calculated the compensatory
damages using Reduced Medical Expenses and/or Reduced Lost
Wages."
Garrison specializes in all lines of residential and
business/commercial insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4cAX1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
GORDON LANE: Parrish Seeks Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAIL PARRISH by and
through Successor in Interest, Monica Parrish, v. GORDON LANE
HEALTHCARE, LLC; SUN MAR MANAGEMENT SERVICES; IRVING BAUMAN; FRANK
JOHNSON; ELI MARMUR; WILLIAM PRESNELL and DOES 1- 250, inclusive,
Case No. 8:22-cv-01790-WLH-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting leave to file a second amended
complaint and motion for class certification, and to modify the
Scheduling Order accordingly as described in the accompanying
memorandum of points and authorities, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 in
Courtroom 9B of the United States District Court in Los Angeles,
California.
The renewed motion is noticed for hearing on Nov. 15, 2024, at 1:30
p.m. This Renewed Motion is based on this Notice of Renewed Motion
and Renewed Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
accompanying Declaration of Brian Umpierre in support of the
renewed motion, and any further evidence or argument offered at the
hearing on the Renewed Motion.
On Aug. 2, 2024, Plaintiff moved to modify the Scheduling Order to
extend the deadline by which motions are to be filed and heard so
as to permit an amendment to the Complaint to name two additional
plaintiffs and proposed representatives of a class of Gordon Lane
residents who are "not subject to arbitration," and the filing of
Plaintiff's Second Amended Motion for Class Certification.
On Sept. 9, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion without
prejudice insofar as the motion was futile because the proposed
class included the proposed Second Amended Complaint would require
an individual analysis of each potential class member, making class
certification improper.
Gordon Lane is a Medicare certified 99-bed skilled nursing facility
located in Fullerton, California.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zrw9hK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq.
Brian S. Umpierre, Esq.
STEBNER GERTLER & GUADAGNI
A Professional Law Corporation
870 Market Street, Suite 1285
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 362-9800
Facsimile: (415) 362-9801
E-mail: kathryn@sgg-lawfirm.com
brian@sgg-lawfirm.com
GREEN SOLUTIONS: Weaver Seeks Extension of Certain Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WEAVER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GREEN SOLUTIONS OF FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-02059-CEM-LHP
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
extending certain case deadlines for a period of 90 days to account
for the time during which the Defendant was in default and
Plaintiff was precluded from taking discovery.
The Plaintiff requires additional discovery from Defendant and
Chase Data, including their depositions, prior to moving for class
certification and serving an expert report.
As a result, the Plaintiff seeks to extend those deadlines and all
other case deadlines that correspond to them for a period of 90
days to account for the nearly 5 months during which the Defendant
was in default and Plaintiff was precluded from taking discovery.
No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. To the
contrary, absent the extension, despite Plaintiff's diligence, the
Plaintiff will be prejudiced by Defendant's default by being
precluded from obtaining necessary discovery prior to seeking class
certification and serving expert reports simply.
The case is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
On Jan. 25, 2024, the Court entered a Case Management and
Scheduling Order providing for, among other deadlines, an Oct. 17,
2024, deadline to seek class certification and a Dec. 3, 2024,
deadline to Plaintiff to serve expert reports.
Because Defendant failed to respond to that discovery, on Feb. 15,
2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to respond.
On Feb. 20, 2024, the Court struck Defendant's answer and directed
the Clerk to default Defendant.
Green Solutions provides premium energy saving solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gf8cLC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
HORIZON PAYMENTS: Thompson Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NEQUETTA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HORIZON PAYMENTS, LLC, RIVERSIDE
PAYMENTS, INC., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV22406, was
removed from Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on October 10, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-08739 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged labor violations.
Horizon Payments, LLC is a payment processing systems company
headquartered in Washington.
Riverside Payments, Inc. is a payment processing systems company
headquartered in Washington. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam M. Starr, Esq.
Joseph M. Levy, Esq.
MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC
1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 295-3085
Facsimile: (503) 323-9105
Email: AdamStarr@MarkowitzHerbold.com
JosephLevy@MarkowitzHerbold.com
INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC: Nelson Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Nelson, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION
D/B/A INDUSTRIAL SCIENTIFIC DEVICES., Case No. 2:24-cv-01431 (W.D.
Pa., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought arising from a recent cyberattack
resulting in a data breach of sensitive information in the
possession and custody and/or control of Defendant (the "Data
Breach").
The Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure,
exfiltration, and theft of consumers' highly personal information,
including name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver's
license number, passport number, birth certificate number,
financial information, and health insurance information ("personal
identifying information" or "PII").
Industrial Scientific's breach differs from typical data breaches
because it affects consumers who had no relationship with
Industrial Scientific, never sought one, and never consented to
Industrial Scientific collecting and storing their information. On
information and belief, the Data Breach occurred between January
25, 2023, and November 6, 2023-an appalling eleven months long.
However, Industrial Scientific did not become aware of suspicious
activity on its network until October 2023 and November 2023, a
staggering ten months after Data Breach had first begun, allowing
cybercriminals unfettered access to Plaintiff's and the Class's
most Sensitive PII during that time.
The Defendant's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
made its consumers vulnerable to identity theft without any
warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to
prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Defendant knew or should
have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and
efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating
the effects of PII misuse. In failing to adequately protect
Plaintiff's and the Class's PII, failing to adequately notify them
about the breach, and by obfuscating the nature of the breach,
Defendant violated state and federal law and harmed tens of
thousands of its current and former consumers.
The Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class are victims of
Defendant's negligence and inadequate cyber security measures.
Specifically, Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted
Defendant with their PII. But Defendant betrayed that trust.
Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to
prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.
Industrial Scientific is a "leader in lifesaving products and
technologies that improve in-the-moment safety outcomes for workers
worldwide."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry Bendesky, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, & BENDESKY, P.C.
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 496-8282
Fax: (215) 496-0999
Email: lbendesky@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mislabels Makeup Removing Wipes, Bridges Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PAIGE BRIDGES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02160 (C.D. Cal., October 5, 2024) is a proposed
class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and a nationwide and
California class of consumers seeking redress for Defendant's
deceptive practices associated with the advertising, labeling, and
sale of its Aveeno Makeup Removing Wipes in violation of the
California's Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the principal display of the product
describes its contents as "25 Plant Based Compostable Wipes."
Bolstering its "plant-based" representation, the label is colored
green, covered with pictures of soybeans, and claims to be
dermatologist recommended. The side of the packaging not only
reaffirms that the Product is "plant based," but further clarifies
that it is "100% Plant Based."
Despite repeatedly assuring consumers that the wipes are 100% Plant
Based, an analysis of its ingredients reveals that the majority of
them (11 of 19 ingredients) are actually synthetic, non-plant based
ingredients including the following: Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl
Acrylate Crosspolymer, Chlorphenesin, Decyl Isostearate,
Dimethicone, Hexylene Glycol, Isohexadecane, Isopropyl Isostearate,
PEG-6 Caprylic/Capric Glycerides, Polysorbate 20, Sodium Hydroxide,
Sucrose Cocoate, and Trisiloxane.
By falsely labeling its Products as being 100% Plant-based, the
Defendant has profited from consumers' preference for natural,
clean and environmentally friendly products, says the suit.
Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. engages in the research and
development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Braun, Esq.
KUZYK LAW, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (213) 401-4100
Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
KANSAS STAR: Perry Suit Seeks Table Games Dealers' Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON V. PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KANSAS STAR CASINO, LLC, PAR-A-DICE GAMING
CORPORATION, BLUE CHIP CASINO, LLC, DIAMOND JO WORTH, LLC, THE
BELLE OF NEW ORLEANS LLC, RED RIVER ENTERTAINMENT OF SHREVEPORT,
L.L.C., TREASURE CHEST CASINO, L.L.C., BOYD TUNICA, INC., and
VALLEY FORGE CONVENTION CENTER PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:24-cv-01183 (D. Kan., October 11, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendants for violation of tip pooling provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant Kansas Star as a table
games dealer at the casino property located at 777 Kansas Star
Drive, Mulvane, Kansas from approximately March 2021 to the
present.
Kansas Star Casino, LLC is a casino operator doing business in
Kansas.
Par-A-Dice Gaming Corporation is a casino operator doing business
in Kansas.
Blue Chip Casino, LLC is a casino operator doing business in
Kansas.
Diamond Jo Worth, LLC is a casino operator doing business in
Kansas.
Belle of Orleans, L.L.C. is a casino operator doing business in
Kansas.
Red River Entertainment of Shreveport, L.L.C. is a casino operator
doing business in Kansas.
Treasure Chest Casino, L.L.C. is a casino operator doing business
in Kansas.
Boyd Tunica, Inc. is a casino operator doing business in Kansas.
Valley Forge Convention Center Partners, LLC is a casino operator
doing business in Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
KENDO HOLDINGS: Appeals Denied Bid to Dismiss Radvansky Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
KENDO HOLDINGS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying
its motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Ethan Radvansky,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kendo Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00214-TCB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).
On Jan. 10, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which
the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Timothy C.
Batten, Sr. on Aug. 13, 2024.
On Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendant asked the Court to amend its
January 10 Order. The Plaintiff opposed.
On Sept. 23, 2024, the Court stayed the case pending the resolution
of a petition for interlocutory appeal filed by the Defendant.
The appellate case is captioned Kendo Holdings, Inc. v. Ethan
Radvansky, Case No. 24-90026, filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on October 3, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent ETHAN RADVANSKY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
James L. Davidson, Esq.
Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 826-5477
- and -
Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
STEVEN H. KOVAL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
15 Piedmont Ctr. NE, Ste. 1020
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 549-4654
- and -
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
BRODERICK LAW, PC
125 Summer St., Ste. 1030
Boston, MA 02110
Defendant-Petitioner KENDO HOLDINGS, INC. is represented by:
Lori Chang, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Pk. E, Ste. 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 586-3863
- and -
William Evan Eye, Esq.
Steven Jason Rosenwasser, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3333 Piedmont Rd. NE, Ste. 2500
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 553-2132
(678) 553-7388
KOHL'S INC: Martinez Sues Over Compromised Info of Customers
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOHL'S, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05405-NIQA (E.D. Pa., October 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within the network systems
of Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. following a data
breach between February 14 and February 26, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Kohl's, Inc. is an operator of department store chains based in
Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
KROGER CO: Class Cert Hearing Set for Nov. 20
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE, et al., v.
THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Algenon Marbley entered an order setting date for class
certification hearing on Nov. 20, 2024.
The Class Certification Hearing in this case may not be continued
by stipulation of the parties or counsel, but only by an order of
the Court on good cause shown.
Any request for a continuance should be made promptly after the
reason for seeking the continuance becomes known.
Counsel should prepare for this hearing with the knowledge that
this Court has already studied the memoranda related to class
certification. Counsel should be prepared to answer questions
raised by the Court.
Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j91xvv at no extra
charge.[CC]
LANOLIPS LLC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Reid Says
------------------------------------------------------------
NADRECA REID, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LANOLIPS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07536 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024) is a civil
rights action against LanoLips for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
http//:www.lanolips.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 Reid has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on
lanolips.com, most recently on September 12, 2024, September 14,
2024, and September 18, 2024, but was unable to do so independently
because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. These
barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of
alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of
navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the
denial of keyboard access, empty links that contain no text,
redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,
and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
LanoLips' 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.
LanoLips, LLC operates the website that offers a range of lip care
and skin care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks More Time to File Reply
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension
of time for their respective deadlines as follows:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file her reply in support of her
class
certification motion and opposition to Defendant's motion to
exclude shall be extended from Oc. 11, 2024 to Oct. 15,
2024.
2. Defendant's deadline to file its reply in support of its
motion
to exclude shall be extended from Nov. 1, 2024 to Nov. 5,
2024.
This is the Parties' third request for a continuance for each of
these Motions. This continuance is not sought for any improper
purpose or delay.
On May 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her class certification
motion.
On Aug. 19, 2024, the Defendant filed its opposition to the
Plaintiff's class certification motion.
Liberty is an American diversified global insurer.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=358KCS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manfred Muecke, Esq.
MANFRED, APC
600 West Broadway, Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 550-4005
Facsimile: (619) 550-4006
E-mail: mmuecke@manfredapc.com
- and -
Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
Robert L. Schug, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN, 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
E-mail: morgan@nka.com
schug@nka.com
- and -
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
James B. Zouras, Esq.
Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
jzouras@stephanzouras.com
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel E. K. Lowe, Esq.
Tiffany L. Powers, Esq.
Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
Melissa Quintana, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1410
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
E-mail: rachel.lowe@alston.com
tiffany.powers@alston.com
andrew.hatchett@alston.com
melissa.quintana@alston.com
- and -
Michael K. Farrell, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
E-mail: mfarrell@bakerlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Bid to Continue Class Cert Hearing Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN LEGARDA, v. CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09516-FLA-E (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order denying without
prejudice the Parties' joint stipulation to continue last day to
hear motion for class certification and to limit the collective
action.
To show good cause for a continuance, a party must provide
specific, detailed, and non-conclusory reasons for granting the
extension, including a showing of diligence in pursuing the
litigation. The parties have not satisfied this standard.
The parties argue a continuance is warranted because: (1) the
parties have been engaged in discovery in connection with
certification issues; (2) after lengthy meet and confer efforts, it
appears the parties have agreed on a sampling methodology for use
in conducting limited pre-certification discovery; and (3) the
parties believe that an extension is necessary, given that, despite
diligent efforts, it is taking longer than anticipated for the City
of Los Angeles to produce certain data and records that Plaintiff
has requested.
Accordingly, they ask that the Last Date to Hear a Motion for Class
Certification, currently set for Friday October 19, 2024, be
continued to Friday Feb. 21, 2025. The parties, however, do not
provide sufficiently specific and non-conclusory facts to establish
diligence and good cause for the requested continuance.
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. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YGyMfx at no extra
charge.[CC]
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid for Reconsideration Tossed
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, et al, v.
MANHATTAN LUXURY AUTOMOBILES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order denying
the Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration is construed to seek reconsideration
based on clear error. However, the Opinion correctly concludes that
as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs did not provide their consent to
be contacted by the Defendant.
The Defendant has had ample opportunity to show a material dispute
of fact with respect to the issue of consent, including on this
motion for reconsideration, but its efforts have been
unsuccessful.
The additional arguments and documents that Defendant raises now to
show consent -- the warranty document and contradictions between
Plaintiff Espinal's declaration and testimony -- do not change the
analysis. The warranty document again discloses information sharing
between HOM and other parties but does not create consent for the
customer to be contacted by those other parties.
Manhattan Luxury is engaged in the retail sale of new and used
automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uaOfIL at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2744: Bid to Certify Utah Class Denied in Gearshift Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC
GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02744-DML-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge David Lawson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motions to certify a Utah class and his motion for
summary judgment.
The Court further entered an order that counsel for the parties
shall appear for a status conference on October 24, 2024, at 2:30
p.m. to discuss a further case management schedule.
The plaintiff has failed to establish that common issues would
predominate over adjudication of the individualized pre-sale
knowledge affirmative defense at a prospective trial. Fact issues
preclude a determination of liability in favor of either party as a
matter of law.
The plaintiffs alleged that studies conducted in 2010 and 2012 by
the defendant’s retained market research firm, which were
replicated during this litigation by the plaintiffs' human factors
expert, suggested that the gear shift design "is defective because
it inhibits reliable gear selection and provides insufficient
tactile or audible feedback to allow drivers to readily and
confidently shift to their intended gear."
The plaintiffs alleged that the June 24, 2016, software fix
announced by FCA was ineffective, and there were numerous reports
logged by NHTSA of vehicles having rollaway accidents after the fix
was applied.
On December 9, 2019, after a lengthy discovery period, the Court
issued an opinion conditionally certifying a common issues class
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4).
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QmUrQM
at no extra charge.[CC]
MDL 3126: 47 Data Breach Row Suits Consolidated in Montana Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chair of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, transfers two sets of actions,
specifically: (a) one case each from the U.S. District Courts for
the Northern District of Georgia, District of Montana, District of
New Jersey, and Northern District of Texas; and (b) 14 cases each
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, 14 from the District of Montana, 10 from the Eastern
Districts of North Carolina, two from the Northern District of
Georgia, and one each from the Northern District of California,
Northern District of Texas and Western District of Washington, all
to the District of Montana and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Judge Brian Morris for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in "In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security
Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3126.
The two sets of actions involve common questions of fact concerning
a cluster of breaches that occurred on the Snowflake cloud platform
from approximately April through June 2024, when a threat actor
allegedly exfiltrated the personal information of over 500 million
consumers and employees whose information was stored on Snowflake's
cloud platform by Snowflake clients. All actions allege that
Snowflake and the client defendants failed to safeguard their
personal information, failed to implement adequate data security
measures, and failed to provide timely notice of the breach to
impacted individuals. The circumstances of the unauthorized access
and data exfiltration, Snowflake's data security practices, and
Snowflake's response to the incidents will be common to all
actions. Snowflake's security practices will be a particularly
important issue in all actions, including the AT&T actions,
considering the common allegation that Snowflake operates within a
"shared responsibility" cybersecurity model and is jointly
responsible with its corporate clients for protecting information
held on the Snowflake cloud.
According to the panel, central common factual questions in all
actions include how the alleged threat campaign against Snowflake
and its clients occurred and whether alleged deficiencies in
Snowflake's data security practices contributed to the data
breaches. There are also unresolved questions on the parameters of
Snowflake's "shared responsibility" cybersecurity model and how
Snowflake implemented that responsibility. The claims against each
of the various Snowflake clients undoubtedly will involve some
defendant-specific issues like the data security practices of each
individual Snowflake client and whether those practices were
reasonable considering the type of data stored on the Snowflake
platform. Moreover, all actions propose substantially overlapping
nationwide classes. The complaints against Snowflake generally
propose classes that would include anyone whose personal
information was exfiltrated from the Snowflake cloud.
"These circumstances convince us that a single multi-defendant MDL
provides the most efficient vehicle for coordinating the
overlapping pretrial proceedings. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings,
particularly with respect to class certification and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary," the
panel rules.
Centralization of all actions in a single MDL encompassing AT&T,
Cricket Wireless, Ticketmaster/Live Nation, Advance Auto Parts, and
other affected Snowflake clients, is warranted given that the core
factual allegations in all actions focus on a related series of
breaches of the Snowflake cloud platform and Snowflake's alleged
responsibility, adds the panel. "In our view, discovery and motions
on these common questions should be addressed by a single court,"
it notes.
"We deny the request to create an MDL solely for the AT&T actions
in these dockets, as proposed in MDL No. 3124, considering the
common factual core. Carving out the AT&T actions from the
Snowflake MDL would be inefficient considering the common factual
questions. An MDL limited to AT&T actions also would not address
the risk of inconsistent rulings on discovery, class certification
(the AT&T and Snowflake putative classes overlap), and
Snowflake’s alleged liability," the panel concludes.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3126-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
MIDLAND FUNDING: Fact Discovery Due Feb. 1, 2025
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BANJELISTER QAMUNGA, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC AND MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A., Case No.
0:23-cv-03513-JRT-TNL (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Tony Leung entered
a third amended pretrial scheduling order as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be commenced in time Feb. 1, 2025
to be completed on or before:
-- Expert discovery, including depositions, Jan. 15, 2025
shall be completed on or before:
-- All motions which seek to amend the Sept. 1, 2024
pleadings, including without limitation,
a motion for leave to amend to add
parties must be served on or before:
-- Plaintiff shall serve and file any class Dec. 1, 2024
certification motion and supporting
documents on or before:
Midland is a legitimate debt collection agency that focuses on
consumer debts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LutSNT at no extra
charge.[CC]
MORGAN STANLEY: Sweeps Customers' Cash Balances, Safron Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAFRON CAPITAL CORP., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY and MORGAN STANLEY
SMITH BARNEY LLC dba MORGAN STANLEY WEALTH MANAGEMENT, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07750 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the New
York General Business Law, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, gross negligence, and negligent
misrepresentations and omissions.
The case arises from a cash sweep program implemented by Morgan
Stanley wherein it automatically sweeps uninvested cash balances in
its customers' accounts and moves them into an interest-bearing
account that generates returns for itself instead of its clients.
Rather than act as a fiduciary in the best interests of Morgan
Stanley's account holders or fulfill its contractual and implied
covenant obligations to its customers, Morgan Stanley used its
customers' funds to enrich itself at the expense of its own
clients. As a result of Morgan Stanley's misconduct, the Plaintiff
and the Class suffered financial harm, says the suit.
Safron Capital Corp. is a financial planning and investment
management services company, headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.
Morgan Stanley is a financial services company, headquartered in
New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, doing business as Morgan Stanley
Wealth Management, is a broker-dealer, headquartered in New York,
New York. [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
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
- and -
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
450 7th Ave., 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
MULTIPLAN INC: Noble Alleges Health Insurance Market Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
OHN W. NOBLE, JR., M.D., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MULTIPLAN, INC., and MULTIPLAN
CORP., VIANT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01361 (W.D. La.,
October 4, 2024) seeks damages for Plaintiff's injuries, and those
suffered by members of the Class, resulting from Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself individually
and on behalf of a Plaintiff class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, consisting of all individuals or entities
residing in Louisiana who have received reimbursement from one or
more of Defendants or Co-Conspirators, or a division, subsidiary,
predecessor, agent, or affiliate of such entities, for
out-of-network healthcare services from at least July 1, 2017 until
present or when Defendants' unlawful misconduct and anticompetitive
effects cease.
Over the past decade, MultiPlan has mutated into a company that
offers what it calls "claims repricing" services to address the
bills insurers receive when a member receives care not covered by
the insurer's preferred network. All major insurers, and more than
700 smaller insurers, have joined with MultiPlan to form a cartel
dedicated to depriving healthcare physicians of fair reimbursement
for out-of-network services.
Members of this MultiPlan Cartel agree on the method of pricing
out-of-network claims. They agree to share their competitively
sensitive reimbursement data to help drive the algorithm. They
agree to allow MultiPlan to align the "override" values applied to
the claims. They agree to pay healthcare providers what MultiPlan
tells them to pay, and not to undercut other Cartel members with
competitive pricing. They agree to condition payment on a
providers' agreement not to bill the patient for the proportion of
the claim the insurer does not pay -- a critical step in keeping
the existence of the Cartel secret, says the suit.
MultiPlan, Inc. provides healthcare cost management solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd A. Townsley, Esq.
THE TOWNSLEY LAW FIRM, LLP
3102 Enterprise Blvd.
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 221-5264
Facsimile: (337) 478-1577
E-mail: ahebert@townsleylawfirm.com
- and -
Tommy Kherkher, Esq.
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD & MONTGOMERY, LLP
4200 Montrose, Ste. 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 322-6387
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: tkherkher@eksm.com
jellzey@eksm.com
lmontgomery@eksm.com
akykta@eksm.com
- and -
D. Brett Turnbull, Esq.
TURNBULL, HOLCOMB & MOAK, P.C.
2501 20th Place South, Suite 425
Birmingham, AL 352223
Telephone: (205) 831-5040
Facsimile: (205) 848-6300
E-mail: bturnbull@turnbullfirm.com
NARIFURI AMERICA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Raheel Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Narifuri America, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07035 (E.D.N.Y., October 6, 2024) is a civil rights action
against Narifuri America for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.mhny.nyc, 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.
On August 1, 2024, Plaintiff, intending to enlarge her wardrobe for
the fall season, wanted to find a local store that would provide
stylish apparel from various brands. Among the search results, she
discovered the Defendant's website and tried to explore their
offerings. While the website showcased a diverse selection of items
from various designers, which she found appealing, she faced
multiple accessibility issues that made navigation inefficient and
frustrating. These issues severely hindered her ability to navigate
the site, preventing her from completing the purchase of the
selected hooded pullover. These access barriers have caused
Mhny.nyc to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by
blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Narifuri America's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Narifuri America, Inc. operates the website that offers fashion
apparel including jackets, shirts, hoodies, sweaters, cardigans,
jeans, pants, shorts, as well as footwear, accessories, and
jewelry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher H. Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Pryor Slams Collegiate Sports Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
TERRELLE PRYOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION aka
NCAA; LEARFIELD COMMUNICATIONS, LLC fka IMG COLLEGE; THE OHIO STATE
UNIVERSITY; and THE BIG 10 CONFERENCE, INC. Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-04019-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 4, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants and their co-conspirators' for
unlawful conduct under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have used and continue
to use their monopoly power to exploit the Plaintiffs and the class
both during and after their college athletic careers by fixing the
amount they may be paid for their own names, images, and likenesses
at zero. While depriving the student athletes of property that is
undeniably their own, the NCAA allows large corporate interests to
pour money into the big business of college sports and derive huge
economic benefits by associating themselves with the student
athletes and their athletic achievements through sponsorship and
endorsement deals with the NCAA, athletic conferences like The Big
Ten Conference, Inc., and schools like The Ohio State University,
says the suit.
Throughout the college careers of the Plaintiff and the class, the
Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in fraudulent
concealment of their misuse of the publicity rights of the
Plaintiffs and the class under the guise of rules they claimed
benefited student-athletes, preserved purported amateurism, and
protected the integrity of college sports -- all in order to
maximize their profits at the expense of Plaintiff and the class,
the suit alleges.
In 2008, Plaintiff Pryor was widely regarded as the nation's top
football prospect. On March 19, 2008, he committed to play at The
Ohio State University.
National Collegiate Athletic Association aka NCAA is a nonprofit
organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100
schools in the United States, and one in Canada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael G. Simon, Esq.
Kevin M. Pearl, Esq.
FRANKOVITCH, ANETAKIS, SIMON, DECAPIO
& PEARL, LLP
337 Penco Road
Weirton, WV 26062
Telephone: (304) 723-4400
Facsimile: (304) 723-5892
E-mail: msimon@faslaw.com
kevin@faslaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Shaheen, Esq.
Diane G. Senakievich, Esq.
SHAHEEN LAW GROUP, LLC
150 West Main Street, Suite 1
P.O. Box 579
St. Clairsville, OH 43950
Telephone: (740) 695-4448
Facsimile: (740) 695-6511
E-mail: michael@slgjustice.com
diane@slgjustice.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Class Cert Oral Argument Set for Oct. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CASEY E. HALL-LANDERS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEW
YORK UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order setting oral argument
hearing on Plaintiff Casey E. Hall-Landers' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Representative, and Appointment
of Class Counsel on Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York.
-- Each side will be allotted 30 minutes of argument.
-- The Plaintiff may reserve a portion of the allotted time for
rebuttal.
-- The Court will then discuss with the parties any ripe discovery
issues raised in the joint letter to be filed on Oct. 25,
2024.
New York University is a private research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eR6bUp at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORRONA SPORT: Martinez Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. NORRONA SPORT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07011-DG-CLP (E.D.N.Y., October 4,
2024) is a civil rights action against Norrona for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate their website,
www.Norrona.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 Martinez has made numerous attempts to complete a
purchase on Norrona.com, most recently on September 9, 2024,
September 14, 2024, and September 23, 2024, but was unable to do so
independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's
website. The image maps on Norrona.com do not contain adequate
alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and other
blind persons attempting to make online purchases. Moreover, the
lack of navigation links on Defendant's website makes attempting to
navigate through Norrona.com even more time consuming and confusing
for him and blind consumers, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Norrona's policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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.
Norrona Sport, Inc. operates the website that offers Norwegian
outdoor products including apparel and equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, et al., v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00017-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order:
(1) extending the deadline for the Defendants to file a response
brief to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, up
to
and including Monday, Nov. 18, 2024; and
(2) extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a reply brief
in
support of their motion for class certification up to and
including Monday, Dec. 9, 2024.
While counsel for the Defendants have been diligently working on
preparing a response brief to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, additional time to do so is required given the
nature of the claims at issue and other work demands of counsel for
Defendants.
Pursuant to Rule 7.3(h), Plaintiffs' reply brief, in support of
motion for class certification would then be due on Dec. 2, 2024.
While counsel for the Plaintiffs will work diligently on their
reply brief, given the nature of the claims at issue, other work
demands of counsel for Plaintiffs, and the intervening Thanksgiving
holiday, the Plaintiffs' counsel anticipate requiring an additional
week to complete their reply brief.
On Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.
NC Department of Public Safety is North Carolina's statewide public
safety and homeland security agency.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0eVD3p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert L. Lindholm, Esq.
Donna O. Tillis, Esq.
Yasmeen Ebbini, Esq.
Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH LLP
301 South College Street, 23rd Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 417-3000
E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com
donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com
yasmeen.ebbini@nelsonmullins.com
matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Michelle Duprey, Esq.
COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
601 E. Fifth Street, Suite 510
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 943-9642
E-mail: MDuprey@cfcrights.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua H. Stein, Esq.
Orlando L. Rodriguez, Esq.
Matthew Tulchin, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 716-6900
Facsimile: (919) 716-6763
E-mail: orodriguez@ncdoj.gov
mtulchin@ncdoj.gov
OHM THEORY: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OHM THEORY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07674 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 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.ohmtheory.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.
OHM Theory LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Hedges Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07560 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://paypal.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, including on April 6,
2024 and the last occurring on September 22, 2024, in an attempt to
open an account and obtain a credit card from Defendant and to view
the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person. The Plaintiff attempted to open an
account and obtain a credit card but was unable to locate pricing
and was not able to add the items to the cart due to broken links,
pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Paypal Holdings, Inc. operates the PayPal online retail service, as
well as the PayPal interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of NewYork 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 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
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Class Cert Bid Modified to March 7, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE BEYARD, et al., v.
PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-KJM-SAB (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order modifying
scheduling order as follows:
1. Non-Expert Discovery: Feb. 7, 2025
2. Motion for Class Certification Deadline: March 7, 2025
3. All other dates and aspects of the scheduling order shall
remain
in effect.
On Oct. 4, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to substitute
class representatives and ordered that Plaintiff file an amended
complaint for her breach of contract claim and substituting
plaintiffs.
On Oct. 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The
parties also submitted a joint scheduling report. Therein, the
parties proffer that they have reached an agreement with respect to
the nonrefundable travel expenses, and Court review is therefore
unnecessary.
Pentagon offers a wide range of financial services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Caqs06 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHARMACENTRA LLC: Maze Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages of CSRs
------------------------------------------------------------
IESHA MAZE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHARMACENTRA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-04557-JPB (N.D. Ga., October 8, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's systemic failure to compensate its employees for all
hours worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Maze worked for Defendant as an hourly remote call center
employee with the job title of customer service representative from
approximately November 2, 2020 to September 30, 2022. Throughout
the relevant period, the Defendant allegedly maintained a corporate
policy and practice of failing to compensate its CSRs for all pre-,
mid-, and post-shift off-the-clock work, says the Plaintiff.
Headquartered in Alpharetta, GA, PharmaCentra LLC provides contact
center services for pharmaceutical companies, clinical trial
organizations, insurance providers, and other healthcare clients.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Weiner, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 254-0842
E-mail: aw@wsjustice.com
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Loses Bid for Protective Order
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN, v.
PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order re: Defendants
motion for protective order and Plaintiff's motion to compel
discovery:
(1) Defendants' motion for a protective order limiting discovery
and striking duplicate discovery requests is denied.
Defendants' motion for entry of their proposed protective
order
related to requests for production 19 and 20 (Id.) is also
denied without prejudice to the parties filing a model
protective order governing all discovery.
(2) Plaintiff's motion to compel production of documents is
granted
in part. In particular, Plaintiff's motion is granted to the
extent it asks the Court to compel production of documents
responsive to Plaintiff's requests for production 1-3, 5-7,
9,
11, 14-17, 20-24, 26-30, and 32, for the period of Jan. 1,
2014, through the present, and pertaining to any section of
the
Jail, not just 3NA. Defendants shall supplement their
responses
to Plaintiff's first set of interrogatories and requests for
production within 21 days of the entry of this Order.
(3) Plaintiff's motion to compel is further granted to the
extent
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to specifically
identify
custodians and data sources, as required by the ESI
Agreement,
and to employ the methodology suggested by Plaintiff which
requires only a single set of search terms to be run across
the
ESI of each custodian or data source identified by
Defendants.
(4) Plaintiff's motion to compel is denied to the extent it
seeks
an Order directing that Defendants run the search terms
proposed by Plaintiff in his June 27, 2024, correspondence
across the ESI of identified custodians or data sources.
(5) Plaintiff's request that costs and fees be assessed is
denied.
The Plaintiff initiated this action on May 2, 2023, with the
submission of a pro se civil rights complaint alleging
constitutional violations related to plumbing and sewer issues at
the Pierce County Jail.
Mr. Wolfclan includes in his amended pleading class allegations
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and seeks certification of a class
defined as follows:
"All detainees held in the Pierce County Jail, Cell Block 3
North
A from April 8, 2023, until the present, and any other cell
blocks
having unremedied plumbing defects leading to the same,
similar,
or worse living conditions, and all detainees who will be held
in
those cell[] blocks in the future ("the Plaintiff Class").
Pierce County is a county in the U.S. state of Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8aBgkQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
PLATINUM LEAF: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PLATINUM LEAF LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07543 (S.D.N.Y., October 4, 2024) is a civil action against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.theplatinumleaf.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' 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 in the future.
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.
Platinum Leaf LLC is a New York Limited Liability company that owns
and maintains a dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
PRESTAMOS CDFI: Allowed Leave to File Portions of Appendix
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALICIA MARSHALL, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered an order granting Prestamos's
motion for leave to file portions of appendix in support of
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under
seal, and finding that the appendix contains confidential
information.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Prestamos's Appendix in Support of Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification shall be filed under seal.
-- Prestamos shall file redacted versions of the sealed documents
on
the public docket unless the redactions would be so extensive as
to
render the document unreadable.
Prestamos provides smallbusiness loans & technical assistance to
entrepreneurs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HvEM3j at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Class Cert Hearing Rescheduled to Nov. 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL J. FORD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED
PERSONS., v. PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:21-cv-04147-JHS (D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered an
order rescheduling the hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class to Nov. 6, 2024.
The Order scheduling the hearing on the Motion for Oct. 22, 2024 at
2:30 pm. is vacated.
Progressive offers property, casualty, life, and health insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlucurt.com/u?l=nbSUaX at no extra
charge.[CC]
RED TOOLBOX: Garden Toys Not Safe for Children, McArther Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIKI MCARTHER & MATT GUEMPEL, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RED TOOLBOX USA INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09723 (D.N.J., October 10, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, fraudulent concealment, and violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Long Handle
Hoe and Rake Stanley Jr. Kids Wheelbarrow and 7-piece Garden Sets
with the model number 1662178 and a manufacturing date of 12.2023.
According to the complaint, the Defendant represented the products
as safe and effective for children to use. Unfortunately, the
products are unfit for their intended use because they contain
levels of lead that exceed the federal lead paint ban. The
Plaintiffs purchased the products, while lacking the knowledge that
the products could poison those who used them. As a result of the
Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated consumers suffered losses, says the suit.
Red Toolbox USA Inc. is a manufacturer of children's toys with its
principal place of business in Florham Park, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Email: pauldoolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
RESA POWER LLC: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Resa Power, LLC. The
case is styled as David Contreras Sandoval, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resa Power, LLC, Case
No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0013474 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty.,
Oct. 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
RESA Power Solutions -- https://www.resapower.com/ -- provides
comprehensive solutions to meet clients' crucial requirements for
power system safety, reliability, operability, and efficiency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
Phone: 213-381-9988
Fax: 213-381-9989
Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
SADDLERIDGE HOLDINGS: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SADDLERIDGE HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-23950-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., Oct. 14, 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
Defendant's discrimination 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 restaurant and bar business within
the commercial property.
Although over 32 years has passed since the effective date of Title
III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation.
The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property and
commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation
and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The
barriers to access, which is set forth below, have likewise posed a
risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and
others similarly situated, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
SADDLERIDGE HOLDINGS LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the
commercial property as its landlord.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
SCALE AI INC: Ramey Balks at Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER RAMEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SCALE AI, INC.; OUTLIER AI, INC.; and
HIREART, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-06999 (N.D. Cal.,
October 6, 2024) is a class action complaint against the Defendants
seeking all available relief under the Federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act and the California WARN Act.
Plaintiff Ramey worked as an employee for Defendants on a full-time
basis from February 6, 2024 until August 26, 2024. During all
relevant time periods, he worked remotely from his home in Windsor,
New York and reported virtually to Defendants' corporate office in
San Francisco, California. He served in the role as an employee
Contributor Success Manager for the Defendants.
On or about August 26, 2024, Plaintiff and the other employees who
reported to the headquarters were notified by Defendant HireArt
that their employment was terminated, effective immediately. The AI
Defendants directed Defendant HireArt to terminate the employment
of Plaintiff and Class Members without prior notice, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered damages by
Defendants' failure to comply with the WARN Act's requirements.
Scale AI, Inc. is in the business of providing software (including
artificial intelligence) creation services for large clients in the
U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
440 N. Barranca Ave., #1228
Covina, CA 91723
Telephone: (310) 919-3310
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
- and -
James E. Goodley, Esq.
Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq.
GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 394-0541
E-mail: james@gmlaborlaw.com
ryan@gmlaborlaw.com
SENDWELL INC: Champion Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joshua Champion, v.
Sendwell, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01143-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying two of the Classes identified in Champion's
Complaint
and defined as:
The DNCR Class
"All persons in the United States (1) to whom Sendwell
initiated
more than one telephone solicitation within any 12-month
period,
(2) to their cellular telephone number, (3) while their phone
number was listed on the national Do Not Call Registry, (4)
within
the last four years from the filing of this action."
The Failure to Identify Class:
"All persons in the United States (1) to whom Sendwell
initiated
more than one telemarketing text message within any 12-month
period, (2) to their cellular telephone number, (3) without
disclosing the name of the individual initiating the text
messages
and the name of the entity on whose behalf the text messages
were
made, (4) within the last four years from the filing of this
action."
-- appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel;
-- appointing Plaintiff Joshua Champion as Class Representative;
and
-- granting Champion leave to conduct discovery to identify Class
members and determine the amount of damages to which they are
entitled, prior to the entry of final judgment in this case.
The case challenges Sendwell's rampant violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), more specifically, Sendwell's
widespread practice of blasting telemarketing text messages to
individuals on the National Do Not Call Registry ("DNCR") without
prior express written consent and without disclosing its identity.
Sendwell is a Michigan based digital marketing company founded in
1998.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ekYGoj at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Wertheim, Esq.
Thomas Alvord, Esq.
Michael Hartmere, Esq.
Brittany Clark, Esq.
LAWHQ, P.C.
299 S. Main St. #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: jim@lawhq.com
thomas@lawhq.com
Michael.hartmere@lawhq.com
brittany.clark@lawhq.com
SH GROUP HOTELS: Hurt Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Trinton Hurt, an individual, and on behalf of
others similarly situated and aggrieved employees pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act v. SH GROUP HOTELS &
RESIDENCES U.S., LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; 1
HOTEL WEST HOLLYWOOD, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company;
1 HOTEL SF, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV23492 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Oct. 14, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08840.
The Complaint asserts the following ten causes of action: Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure
to Pay Doubletime; Failure Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Provide
Meal Periods; Failure To Timely Pay Wages During Employment;
Failure to Timely Pay Wages Upon Termination/Resignation; Failure
to Provide Complete and Accurate Wage Statements; Unfair or
Unlawful Business Practices; and Violation of the California
Private Attorneys General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Mueller, Esq.
Janet S. Soultanian, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, 18th Fl.
Encino, CA 91436
Phone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
Email: emueller@brgslaw.com
jsoultanian@brgslaw.com
- and -
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
2 Park Plaza, Suite 470
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
Email: mgolper@brgslaw.com
SHOPIFY (USA): Lazares Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MATTHEW LAZARES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SHOPIFY (USA), INC. and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 24-CIV-03532, was removed from the Superior
Court of San Mateo County, State of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on October
11, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-07125 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Shopify's violations of the California Labor
Code and California's Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, failure to
provide rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge, unlawful business
practices, and civil penalties.
Shopify (USA), Inc. is a global commerce company based in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel S. Brass, Esq.
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
One Embarcadero Center Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
Email: rbrass@gibsondunn.com
jrose@gibsondunn.com
SIPARADIGM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Milbauer Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA MILBAUER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIPARADIGM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09619-MCA-JRA (D.N.J., October 4, 2024) is a class action
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its clients' patients, including
Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding
that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted,
compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The
private information compromised in the data breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
addresses, and dates of birth and medical information, which is
protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' private information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party
and precisely what specific type of information was accessed.
siParadigm, LLC is a company that offers diagnostic and lab testing
services to healthcare providers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (516) 491-4665
E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
SLIM CD INC: Murray Sues Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
LINDLEY MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SLIM CD, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-61880-XXXX (S.D. Fla., October 8, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of roughly 1.7 million people.
On or about September 6, 2024, Slim CD announced that an
unauthorized third party gained access to its computer systems
between August 17, 2023, and June 15, 2024. To date, the Defendant,
however, has failed to send data breach notice letters to
individuals who were affected by the data breach discussing the
details of the root cause of the data breach, the vulnerabilities
exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a
breach does not occur again. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts
claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment,
invasion of privacy, and for violations of the Florida Information
Protection Act, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.
Headquartered in Coral Springs, FL, Slim CD, Inc., is a Florida
corporation that provides payment gateway services and develops
credit card processing software for mobile and desktop. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
D. Nicole Guntner, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
nguntner@awkolaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
SMG FOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ordono Due Jan. 8, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Laurel Beeler entered an order that the Plaintiff's deadline to
file a Motion for Class Certification is now Jan. 8, 2025.
-- The Defendant's deadline to oppose is Feb. 7, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to Defendant's
Opposition is now Feb. 28, 2025.
-- The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification will
be
continued until March 31, 2025, subject to change depending on
the Court's availability.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3nK0GZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven M. Kroll, Esq.
BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 315-0510
SMG FOOD: Parties Seek Jan. 8, 2025 Deadline for Class Cert Filing
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Ordono, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; v. SMG Food & Beverage,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05019-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order that:
1. Plaintiff's deadline to file a Motion for Class Certification
is
now Jan. 8, 2025.
2. Defendant's deadline to oppose is Feb. 7, 2025.
3. Plaintiff's deadline to file his Reply to Defendant's
Opposition
is now Feb. 28, 2025.
4. The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
will
be continued until March 31, 2025, subject to change
depending
on this Court's availability.
On Jan. 18, 2024, the Court entered an order establishing a
schedule for class certification briefing.
SMG was founded in 1999. The Company line of business includes
providing management consulting services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DLbL9h at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Steven M. Kroll, Esq.
BENT CARYL & KROLL, LLP
6300 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1415
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 315-0510
Facsimile: (323) 774-6021
E-mail: skroll@bcklegal.com
SOLO FUNDS: Cofield Sues Over Deceptive Lending Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Cofield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SOLO FUNDS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08934
(C.D. Cal., Oct. 16, 2024), is brought as a result of the
Defendant's unlawful and deceptive lending practices that caused,
and continues to cause, harm to Plaintiff and members of the Class
in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act.
According to the complaint, Solo Funds markets itself as a
consumer-friendly alternative to high cost, short-term loans,
offering "no-interest" lending; however, this is far from the
truth. SoLo misleads consumers and borrowers with advertising and
disclosures that falsely claim its loans have zero interest and no
surprise fees when, in fact, it charges consumers interest and fees
deceptively labeled as "tips" and "donations" that result in an
exorbitant and unlawful total cost of credit.
SoLo entices consumers to apply for loans through its platform by
falsely representing in its advertisements that a consumer could
obtain financing at zero interest. During the loan application
process, borrowers are prompted to select a "Tip Fee" and are
encouraged to pay larger tips in order to get funded.
The tip fee is only one of the fees that a borrower is expected to
pay to obtain a loan. The loan application further includes an
additional step in which the borrower is prompted to select a
"Donation Fee" that goes directly to SoLo. SoLo does not provide
consumers with a "$0" SoLo donation fee option during the loan
application process or even a way to click through to the next page
without selecting an amount to pay toward SoLo Donation Fee.
Rather, Solo obscures the method by which consumers can opt for no
Donation Fee, hiding it in another section of its mobile
application and failing to provide readily available information to
consumers about how to disable the Donation Fee.
SoLo provides borrowers with loan documents that purported to
disclose the amounts owed and costs of the loans, but fails to
disclose fees that SoLo would seek to collect. For example, some of
these documents stated that only the principal amount was due, and
further stated that the APR on the loan was 0% and that the finance
charge on the loan was $0.00. There was no disclosure whatsoever of
the "tip fee" or the "donation fee" in the calculation of the
finance charge and annual percentage rate for the loan. These fees,
however, are ultimately included in the repayment amount due, in
violation of the TILA, Regulation Z, and usury laws, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff opened an account on the SoLo Funds marketplace in or
around 2021.
SoLo Funds, Inc. is a financial technology company operating
throughout the United States offering consumers a small, short-term
loans through its peer-to-peer lending platform.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
SONDER HOLDINGS: Duffaydar Class Suit Consolidated with Park Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAWSHEEN DUFFAYDAR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SONDER HOLDINGS INC. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02952-ODW-JC (C.D.
Cal the Hon. Judge Otis Wright, II entered an order:
-- granting the motions to consolidate
-- granting Park's motion for appointment, and
-- denying Paleski's and Walker's motions for appointment.
The Duffaydar case is consolidated with Tad Park v. Sonder Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-04798-ODW (JCx), for all purposes
including trial. Duffaydar v. Sonder Holdings Inc. et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-02952-ODW (JCx) is designated as the lead case.
All documents related to either case should be filed in only the
lead case. The caption page of all such documents filed with the
Court in
this lead case shall be identical in form as the caption on this
Order.
The Court further entered an order that Tad Park is designated as
lead plaintiff in the consolidated actions, and that Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP is designated as lead class counsel, subject to the
Court's granting of a Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff Nawsheen Duffaydar brings this putative class action
for securities fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Defendants. Movants Tad
Park, Michael Paleski, and Ashley Walker each move to consolidate
this action with a parallel action filed by Park, and each seek
appointment as lead plaintiff with their respective counsel as lead
counsel.
Sonder is a publicly traded hospitality services company under the
ticker symbol "SOND" on the Nasdaq Global Market.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pf6Sqd at no extra
charge.[CC]
SOUTH MARINE: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Muongkhot Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KAYASONE MUONGKHOT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH MARINE SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01758 (N.D. Ohio, October 9, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay for all hours
worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the
Ohio Prompt Pay Act.
The Plaintiff worked for South Marine as a non-exempt worker from
November 2023 to March 2024.
South Marine Systems, LLC is a ship building and repair company
based in Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
Email: matt@parmet.law
SPIRE GLOBAL INC: Tagawa Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spire Global, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Kohei Tagawa, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spire Global, Inc.,
Peter Platzer, Thomas Krywe, Leonardo Basola, Case No.
1:24-cv-01809 (E.D. Va., Oct. 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.
Spire Global, Inc. -- https://spire.com/ -- is a space-to-cloud
data and analytics company that specializes in the tracking of
global data sets powered by a large constellation of
nanosatellites, such as the tracking of maritime, aviation and
weather patterns.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SUNRISE BUS: Charles Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ladonna Charles, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated known and unknown v. SUNRISE BUS, LLC., D/B/A LAKEVIEW BUS
LINES, INC., AND JAMIE ENGER, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:24-cv-10117
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) as
a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages.
At no time during Plaintiff's employment was she paid for those
hours worked over 40 per work week at an overtime rate of pay. The
job duties and compensation structure utilized by Defendant to pay
Plaintiff did not qualify under any of the overtime exemptions
established by the FLSA or the IMWL and should have been
compensated as a non-exempt hourly employee and paid time and
one-half her regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without
pay for all hours worked over 40 at a rate of time and one-half her
regular hourly rates of pay, pursuant to the requirements of the
federal and state statutes herein relied upon, in at least one, if
not all, weeks in which she was employed by Defendants, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since September 2010
and employment ceased September 6, 2024.
The Defendant has multiple locations throughout Illinois, i.e.,
Niles, Crestwood, Rockford, and the state of Connecticut, providing
bus and other transportation services to school districts and the
general public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 853-1450
SUPER MICRO: Norfolk Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC.,
CHARLES LIANG, and DAVID WEIGAND, Defendants, Case No.
5:24-cv-06980 (N.D. Cal., October 4, 2024) is a class action
brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and a class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Super Micro securities
between February 2, 2021 and September 25, 2024, inclusive, seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder.
This action alleges that Defendants intentionally or recklessly
misled investors during the Class Period by: (a) materially
misstating Super Micro's reported revenues, earnings, and other
financial figures in violation of U.S. Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles; (b) failing to disclose that Super Micro's
internal controls over financial reporting were ineffective; (c)
concealing material information about related parties and related
party transactions; and (d) claiming to have been in compliance
with trade control regulations restricting exports to Russia.
On September 26, 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that the
U.S. Department of Justice had initiated an investigation into
Super Micro. The investigation reportedly focused on allegations
made by a whistleblower and former employee, who accused the
company of accounting violations. On news of the DOJ investigation,
Super Micro stock dropped 12.17 percent, to close at $402.40 per
share on September 26, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Headquartered in San Jose, California, Super Micro Computer, Inc.
is a manufacturer of server and storage solutions, providing
hardware to technology companies for use in servers supporting
websites, data storage, and artificial intelligence
applications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
HAAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: lucasg@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION: Corzine Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Corzine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SUPERIOR CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01224
(M.D. Tenn., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought pursuant of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages.
The Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and class members
were paid overtime wages when they worked hours in excess of 40 in
a workweek or in excess of 8 in a workday, a time and one-half
overtime premium for work on the 6th day of a workweek, and a
double-time overtime premium for all hours worked on Sundays;
however, Defendant failed to properly calculate their regular rate
of pay when determining overtime and/or premium wages.
Specifically, Defendant failed to include bonus payments in its
computation of the regular rate for overtime and/or premium wages
to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and class members,
thereby depriving them of their earned overtime and/or premium
wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Superior as a laborer on the TVA
project within the past three years.
The Defendant engages in the construction of large complex projects
including roads, interstates, dams, bridges, runways, industrial
building foundations, and other infrastructure projects
nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Reid Estes, Jr., Esq.
Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
Autumn L. Gentry, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
Fifth Third Center
424 Church Street, Suite 800
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: (615) 244-6538
Email: restes@dickinsonwright.com
mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com
agentry@dickinsonwright.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Filing for Class Cert Extended to Oct. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL END-PAYOR PLAINTIFF
ACTIONS), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge M.
Page Kelley entered an order as follows:
-- Premera's deadline for filing EPPs' class certification motion
and
any expert reports on EPP-specific issues in Case No. 1:23-cv-
12918 is extended to Oct. 22, 2024.
-- Takeda's response to EPPs' class certification motion and any
expert reports on EPP-specific issues in Case No. 1:23-cv-12918
is
extended to Jan. 15, 2025.
-- EPPs' reply in support of class certification motion and any
rebuttal expert reports is extended to Feb. 26, 2025.
On May 8, 2024, the Court allowed the parties' joint motion and
adopted the parties' proposed deadlines.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z7XB2j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, O'CONNELL &
FIDURKO, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
Katie J.L. Scott, Esq.
Assad H. Rajani, Esq.
Sam Sullivan, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
katie.scott@arnoldporter.com
assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
sam.sullivan@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
David S. Shotlander, Esq.
Aakruti G. Vakharia, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
dshotlander@haugpartners.com
avakharia@haugpartners.com
TRICIDA INC: Klaerner Must Produce Documents by Nov. 15
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PARDI, et al., v.
TRICIDA, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Lisa Cisneros entered an order directing Defendant
Gerrit Klaerner to produce documents consistent with the Order in
response to Fiore's requests for production beginning no later than
Oct. 24, 2024, and concluding no later than Nov. 15, 2024.
The parties and Tricida are directed to meet and confer to develop
a screening process to identify any of Klaerner's communications
with his attorneys about this litigation that might be included in
the documents Tricida has otherwise agreed to produce. The parties
shall file either a stipulation or a joint letter addressing that
process no later than Oct. 17, 2024.
Unless the parties agree on a limited scope for initial production
that does not implicate potentially privileged documents, Tricida
shall not produce documents in response to the subpoena until after
a review process is established. IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court limits the scope of
documents that Klaerner must produce in response to Fiore’s
requests for production under Rule 34, but declines to limit the
scope of Tricida’s production in response to Fiore’s subpoena,
except to ensure that Klaerner will have an opportunity to screen
that production for his own attorney-client communications.
The Court therefore concludes that the FDA's communications with
Tricida preceding Klaerner's allegedly misleading statements on May
7, 2020, as well as internal Tricida documents reflecting
Klaerner's understanding of those communications, are fair game for
discovery.
Fiore has not shown, however, that subsequent FDA proceedings are
relevant to the remaining claims in this case such that production
of all documents related to those proceedings is warranted.
This case concerns allegations that misrepresentation by Defendant
Gerrit Klaerner regarding FDA review of a pharmaceutical product
called veverimer that Tricida, Inc. was developing affected the
value of Tricida stock, including stock purchased by Lead Plaintiff
Jeffrey Fiore. Klaerner was Tricida’s founder and CEO.
Tricida operates as a bio-pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MS4HKW at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED AIRLINES: Vaccine Mandate Violates Rights, Reinauer Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN REINAUER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-02358 (M.D. Fla., October 9, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the U.S.
Constitution.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated federal law by
failing to engage in an individualized interactive process to
provide reasonable accommodations regarding its vaccine mandate,
and also by retaliating against employees who engaged in protected
activity. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees lost months of pay and higher
placement on the company's seniority list. At the same time, the
Defendant succeeded with other employees similarly situated to Mr.
Reinauer and coerced them into taking the vaccine to begin working
even though they were entitled to an exemption, says the suit.
United Airlines, Inc. is an airline company, with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine Cline, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
20200 West Dixie Highway, Suite 902
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (888) 747-4529
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
Email: ccline@sirillp.com
- and -
John C. Sullivan, Esq.
S|L LAW PLLC
610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
Cedar Hill, TX 75104
Telephone: (469) 523-1351
Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
Email: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS: Murphy Sue Over Website's Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSITY OF THE CUMBERLANDS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07755 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 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 Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.
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.ucumberlands.edu/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text
equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same url address, and linked images
missing alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
University of the Cumberlands, Inc. is a company that sells online
goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Sends Unwanted Telemarketing Calls, Sessoms Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA MICHELLE SESSOMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00580-BO (E.D.N.C., October 9, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in the
unlawful practice of using prerecorded messages to call consumers,
including the Plaintiff, on their cellular telephone numbers in an
attempt to promote its goods and services without obtaining prior
express consent. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief
to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals.
USHEALTH Advisors, LLC is a health coverage provider located in
Fort Worth, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-299
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Illegally Records Phone Calls, Quinn Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LYNDA QUINN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., VISION
SERVICE PLAN a/k/a VSP GLOBAL, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 24CV017871, was removed from the Superior Court of the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on October 9, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-02780-TLN-SCR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' recording and/or monitoring,
without the consent of all parties, the telephone calls made to
Visionworks' toll-free customer service telephone numbers in
violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act.
Visionworks of America, Inc. is an American company which operates
or manages optical retail stores, headquartered in Texas.
Vision Service Plan, also known as VSP Global, is a vision care
health insurance company headquartered in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Abirami Gnanadesigan, Esq.
David S. Killoran, Esq.
DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-1800
Facsimile: (213) 457-1850
Email: AGnanadesigan@dykema.com
DKilloran@dykema.com
WELLS FARGO: Chakravarthy Sues Over Exploitative and Unfair Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gopal Chakravarthy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS FARGO
CLEARING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, Case No.
2:24-cv-08831 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2024), is brought arising from
the Defendants' exploitative and unfair implementation of the Wells
Fargo Standard Bank Deposit Sweep ("Standard Sweep") and the Wells
Fargo Expanded Bank Deposit Sweep ("Expanded Sweep") (collectively,
"the "Bank Deposit Sweep Program" or "Program"), resulting in the
breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and
similarly situated retirement account investors as their investment
advisors and to brokerage accountholders generally.
A cash sweep account is a type of bank or brokerage account that is
linked to an investment account and automatically transfers funds
when the balance is above or below a preset minimum. Typically,
this is used to sweep excess cash into a money market fund, where
it will earn more interest than an ordinary bank account.
Specifically, when acting as their customers' agents and
fiduciaries, Defendants "sweep" uninvested cash balances in its
customers' accounts and primarily deposits that cash into accounts
located at its banks (including Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells
Fargo Bank South Central, N.A., Wells Fargo National Bank West)
(collectively, the "Affiliated Banks"). Because the Affiliated
Banks' accounts pay far below market rates of interest, Plaintiff
and other Class members have lost significant amounts of interest
they would have otherwise earned had Defendants swept their
uninvested cash into bank accounts that pay a market interest
rate.
The Defendants breached their fiduciary duties when it placed their
customers' cash in low interest-bearing accounts held by its own
affiliates and then pocketed the unpaid interest as additional
profit. The Defendants failed to adequately disclose to their
customers that, as to the Program, they are essentially providing a
kickback to its own affiliates at its customers' expense.
Specifically, Defendants shortchanged their customers for their and
their affiliates' benefit by negotiating with the Bank one-sided
transactions that swept cash into exceedingly low-interest
accounts. Defendants failed to disclose and discuss these
conflicted transactions, much less obtain informed consent from its
customers and principals.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Class of similarly situated individuals for breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and, as to the California
Sub-Class, violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), to recover damages arising out of Defendants' violations
of the law, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just
and proper, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendants.
Wells Fargo is a leading financial services company with assets of
approximately $1.9 trillion and office locations across the
world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
WELLSPAN HEALTH: Tomassone Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WELLSPAN HEALTH. The
case is styled as Albert Daniel Tomassone, Vincent Demasi,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WELLSPAN
HEALTH, Case No. 2:24-cv-05460 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Spire Global, Inc. -- https://spire.com/ -- is a space-to-cloud
data and analytics company that specializes in the tracking of
global data sets powered by a large constellation of
nanosatellites, such as the tracking of maritime, aviation and
weather patterns.[BN]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.
The Defendants are represented by:
Nathalie Anne Freeman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1735 Market Street, Ste. 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (402) 802-8101
Email: nfreeman@bakerlaw.com
WILLIAM KEITH MAXWELL: Stutzman Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William Keith Maxwell
III, et al. The case is styled as Michael Stutzman, and others
similarly situated v. William Keith Maxwell III, Amanda E. Bush,
Electric Holdco, LLC, Kenneth Hartwick, Miguel Barajas, Nudevco
Retail Holdings, LLC, Nudevco Retail, LLC, Retailco, LLC, Stephen
Kennedy, Txex Energy Investments, LLC, Case No. 2024-1053 (Del.
Chancery Ct., Oct. 14, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Quinn, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC-WILMINGTON
112 French St Ste 201
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 438-3436
Email: christopher.quinn@ksfcounsel.com
ZARBEE'S INC: Lopez Can File Reply Until Dec. 20
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ, and DAMANY
BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04465-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order extending
class certification deadlines as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' Reply in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification is due on Dec. 20, 2024;
2. Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Weir Daubert motion is due Dec.
20, 2024;
3. Zarbee's Reply in support of the Weir Daubert motion is due
on
Jan. 21, 2025;
4. The Hearing on (i) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
and (ii) Zarbee's Weir Daubert motion is continued to Jan.
31,
2025.
Zarbee's produces pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZXQSM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joshua Kipnees, Esq.
Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER
LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2110
E-mail: jkipnees@pbwt.com
sazalesin@pbwt.com
- and -
Gary T. Lafayette, Esq.
Brian H. Chun, Esq.
LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP
1300 Clay Street, Suite 810
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 357-4600
Facsimile: (415) 357-4605
E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com
bchun@lkclaw.com
ZF COLLECTIVE: Lorenzo Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELSIEN LORENZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZF COLLECTIVE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03881 (S.D. Tex., October 10, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Lorenzo worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid employee
from November 2023 to August 2024.
ZF Collective LLC is a provider of risk mitigation services
headquartered in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
Email: matt@parmet.law
ZUFFA LLC: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Authority Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EVERETT BLOOM, JACK
GRAHAM, and DAVE LINDHOLM, on behalf of themselves, and those
similarly situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00412-RFB-BNW
(D. Nev.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting
leave to file a notice of supplemental authority in support of its
opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
sur-reply in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Sj9m9N at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Colby Williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
710 South 7th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
Facsimile: (702) 382-0540
E-mail: jcw@cwlawlv.com
- and -
Susan K. Leader, Esq.
Ali R. Rabbani, Esq.
Stephanie V. Balitzer, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: susanleader@paulhastings.com
alirabbani@paulhastings.com
stephaniebalitzer@paulhastings.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***