/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241022.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 212
Headlines
ABBOTT LAB: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification Filing
ACACIA NETWORK: Must Oppose Conditional Class Cert. by Nov. 15
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Cohen Wins Class Cert Bid
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 1, 2025
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Menichini Alleges
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Lourenco Alleges
APPLE INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Costa Lawsuit
ASPIRE LOYALTY: Fails to Pay Travel Agents' OT Wages, Adaway Says
AT&T INC: Montgomery Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AT&T INC: Winger Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Files Mislabeling Suit Over Beauty Products
AXIS SURPLUS: Case Management & Sched Order Entered in Renegade
BANK OF MISSOURI: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
BASF CORP: Final Approval of Class Settlement in Camden Sought
BAYER CORP: Newman Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
BECHTEL GLOBAL: Parties Must File Joint Submission on Briefing
BETTERHELP INC: Faces Rodarte Over Fraudulent Business Practices
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Moore Class Action Suit Over Toxic Plume
BLOOMBERG LP: Conditional Certification Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
BLUE CROSS: Settles Antitrust Class Action Claims for $2.8-Bil.
BOXART INC: Balzekas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
BUMBLE TRADING: Removes Johnson Suit to C.D. of Calif.
BURRATA BASIL: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
CARCO GROUP: Class Cert Bid Deadline Remains Nov. 27
CLEARCELL POWER: Hyaxiom Inc. Suit Removed to S.D. New York
CREDITNINJA LENDING: Silva Suit Removed to S.D. California
CRESCA CORP: Must Respond to Ortiz-Vargas Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23
CURRENEX INC: EFC Bid to Compel Production of Source Code Denied
DILLARD'S INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says
DOHMAN AKERLUND & EDDY: Preiss Files Suit in D. Nebraska
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Patel Suit Over 31.34% Stock Price Drop
ELITE HOME WARRANTY: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
EMIRATES AIRLINES: Farah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says
EPIC GAMES: Bid for Arbitration in S.T.G. Suit Granted in Part
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says
GILL CORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Ansar Says
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss in Southfield Suit
HP INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Pattison Class Suit
IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 6
IRON CUMBERLAND: Gibel Must File Amended Class Complaint by Oct. 29
JOHNNIE-O INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Hedges Says
LIGHT & WONDER: Rosen Investigates Potential Securities Claims
MARS WRIGLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23
MAXCO SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Labor Practices
MINDLANCE HEALTH: Fails to Timely Pay Patient Care Workers' Wages
MISS JESSIE'S: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Heges Says
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Reyes Claims
NEW YORK, NY: Expert Disclosures in United Suit Due Nov. 8,
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement in Weiner Gets Final Nod
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Reply to Opposition Extended to Oct. 24
PROJECT E: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fontan Due August 1, 2025
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Dawkins Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
QUICK BOX: Class Action Settlement in Tan Suit Gets Initial Nod
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Grady Suit Gets Initial Nod
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Video Voyeurism
SNOWFLAKE INC: Weaver Suit Transferred to D. Montana
SOLACIUM HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 19, 2025
SPIRE RECOVERY: Randolph Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Removes Hill Suit to W.D. Wash.
SWIFTMERGE ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aleanna
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Cert of OT Collective
THIS IS L: E. D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Seaman Consumer Suit
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Specialist's Minimum & OT Wages
TTEC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Remote Workers' OT Wages, Alvarez Says
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Class Cert Hearing Continued to Dec. 12
XIAO-I CORPORATION: Fan Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
ZOETIS INC: Faces Suit Over Librela Drug Adverse Reaction to Dogs
ZOETIS INC: Hartney Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Antibody Product
*********
ABBOTT LAB: Parties Seek More Time for Class Certification Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on
behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public,
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter the accompanying proposed order
extending the parties' deadlines related to Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend complaint, motion for class certification, and
further case management conference.
Deadline Old Date New Date
Deadline to Move for Class Oct. 28, 2024 Jan. 23, 2025
Certification
Deadline to File Opposition to Jan. 27, 2025 Apr. 24, 2025
Class Certification Motion
Deadline to File Reply in Mar. 24, 2025 June 19, 2025
Support of Class Certification
Motion
Hearing on Class Certification Apr. 24, 2025 July 17, 2025
Motion
Deadline to File Updated Joint June 20, 2025 Sept. 11,
2025
Case Management Conference
Statement
Further Case Management June 26, 2025 Sept. 18, 2025
Conference
The parties have spent many months diligently pursuing discovery.
Abbott has continuously produced documents between August 4, 2023,
through September 3, 2024.
Discovery remains ongoing, including various discovery requests and
disputes the parties are working through.
In addition, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint,
which may affect the class certification motion, is pending.
Finally, Abbott's counsel has trial in another matter scheduled in
mid-January 2025, which would hinder Abbott's ability to oppose the
motion on the current timeframe.
Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R8OckP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 215-1471
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark McKane, Esq.
Tracie L. Bryant, Esq.
Tia T. Trout-Perez, Esq.
Gregg F. LoCascio, Esq.
Michael A. Glick, Esq.
Terence J. McCarrick, Esq.
Shelby P. Smith, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 California Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 439-1400
Washington, DC 20004
E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com
tracie.bryant@kirkland.com
ttrout-perez@kirkland.com
glocascio@kirkland.com
michael.glick@kirkland.com
tj.mccarrick@kirkland.com
shelby.smith@kirkland.com
ACACIA NETWORK: Must Oppose Conditional Class Cert. by Nov. 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GIITOU NEOR and TYRONE
WALLACE on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, v. ACACIA NETWORK, INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, ACACIA
NETWORK HOUSING INC., d/b/a ACACIA NETWORK, PROMESA RESIDENTIAL
HEALTH CARE FACILITY, INC., d/b/a PROMESA, and JOHN DOE CORP 1-100,
Case No. 1:22-cv-04814-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos
entered an order:
-- The Defendants' opposition to the motion for conditional class
certification is currently due on Nov. 15, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs are directed to file their reply by Nov. 22,
2024.
Acacia offers primary care, workforce development, behavioral
health, homeless shelters, food distribution and senior services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OgAoWv at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLEGIANCE ADMINISTRATORS: Cohen Wins Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shmuel Cohen et al., v.
Allegiance Administrators, LLC et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-03411-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James Graham
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
The class shall be defined as follows:
"Each person who entered into an Excess Wear & Tear Protection
Waiver with the Defendants to provide coverage for a leased
vehicle and who (a) submitted at least one eligible claim for
coverage under the Waiver Agreement and (b) was denied coverage
for a stated reason set forth in Defendants' claims report (or
other substantively similar document) that is not a grounds for
non-coverage under the terms and conditions set forth in the
Waiver Agreement."
The Court finds that members of the proposed class are readily
ascertainable with a review of the "Corrective Action" section and
other sections of the claims report.
This Court finds that the Plaintiff's proposed Class of 736 members
satisfies the "numerosity" requirement as it is substantial and so
numerous as to make joinder of all members impracticable.
Based on this Court’s inquiry, Plaintiffs satisfy the adequacy
requirement because they possess qualified counsel, and the named
Class Representatives possess the same interest and injury as the
rest of the Class. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs
have satisfied all of the requirements under Rule 23(a).
The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant had a policy and practice of
denying eligible claims for reasons not justified under the terms
and conditions of the contract.
The Named Plaintiffs, all New York residents, are lessees who
purchased Waivers from the defendant, asserted claims thereunder,
and allege their claims were improperly denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3WjQKo at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 1, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered an order grating the joint stipulation as follows:
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 Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWHBPC at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Menichini Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MENICHINI, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-09776 (D.N.J., Oct. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable
information, i.e., information that is or could be used, whether on
its own or in combination with other information, to identify,
locate, or contact a person.
On Oct. 3, 2024, American Water "learned of unauthorized activity
within its computer networks and systems" which was determined to
be the result of a cybersecurity incident. The compromised
information includes names, email addresses, phone numbers, home
addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers ("SSN"),
drivers' license information, bank account and other financial
information, account information, and other personally identifying
information, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
American Water's conduct. These injuries include invasion of
privacy; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity
costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; an
increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued and
certainly increased risk to their PII, alleges the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members seek to remedy these harms and
prevent any future data compromise on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated persons whose PII was compromised and stolen as
a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendant's inadequate data security practices.
Ms. Menichini is a customer of American Water. Plaintiff provided
her PII to American Water as a condition to opening and maintaining
an account with American Water.
American Water is a New Jersey-based water and wastewater utility
company that provides essential water and wastewater services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
Bradley K. King, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
bking@ahdootwolfson.com
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Lourenco Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TED LOURENCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL
SERVICES LLC, AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., and AMERICAN
ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08825 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 14, 2024) is a case arising from Defendants'
exploitative and unfair implementation of the Ameriprise Insured
Money Market Account and the Ameriprise Bank Insured Sweep Account
(collectively, "Ameriprise Sweep Program" or "Program"), resulting
in the breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to the
Plaintiff and similarly situated retirement account investors as
their investment advisors.
The suit contends that Ameriprise breached its fiduciary duties
when it placed its 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, the 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. The Defendants failed to disclose and
discuss these conflicted transactions, much less obtain informed
consent from its customers and principals, the suit says.
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, to
recover damages arising out of the Defendants' violations of the
law, and for such other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
Mr. Lourenco is a customer of the Defendants and is a resident and
citizen of California. He maintained a Rollover IRA Plan and a Roth
IRA Plan in a brokerage account in which cash was held over the
course of the life of the account.
Ameriprise provides financial planning products and services in the
United States, including wealth and asset management.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq.*
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
adam@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON
WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
APPLE INC: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition in Costa Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCIS COSTA, AMANDA
HOFFMAN, and OLIVIA MCILRAVY-ACKERT, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. APPLE INC., Case No.
3:23-cv-01353-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order sealing Apple Inc.'s opposition to the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, Apple Inc.'s motion for
decertification of the FLSA Collective, and Supporting Documents.
Pursuant to this Court's Standing Order on Administrative Motions
to File Under Seal, Apple certifies, by and through undersigned
counsel, that it has reviewed and complied with the Standing Order
and that it has reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Apple seeks to partially or fully seal documents that contain
either non-public, competitively sensitive information, the
disclosure of which could harm Apple, or personal identifying
information of current and former Apple employees.
Namely, Apple moves to seal portions of the Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification and documents supporting that memorandum, as well as
portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of
the Motion for Decertification of the FLSA Collective and documents
supporting that memorandum, which are being filed concurrently.
Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant Apple’s motion
to seal the confidential and non-public information contained
within these documents, which are specifically identified in the
concurrently filed Declaration of Joe Thomas Jr. (“Thomas
Declaration”).
Here, Apple asks the Court to seal four categories of information:
(1) confidential information regarding Apple’s policies and
practices regarding employee total rewards, including information
relating to RSU grants and administration; (2) information relating
to job titles, responsibilities, and leveling; (3) employment
policies and practices; and (4) personal identifiable information
of third party individuals, namely Apple current and former
employees. As set forth in greater detail on a documentby-document
basis in the Thomas Declaration filed concurrently, all of these
categories meet the good cause test enumerated above.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pKDAK5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
Theane Evangelis, Esq.
Cynthia Chen Mcternan, Esq.
Megan Cooney, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
E-mail: TBoutrous@gibsondunn.com
TEvangelis@gibsondunn.com
CMcTernan@gibsondunn.com
MCooney@gibsondunn.com
ASPIRE LOYALTY: Fails to Pay Travel Agents' OT Wages, Adaway Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Adaway, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Aspire Loyalty Travel Solutions LLC, Case
No. 2:24-cv-02792-DJH (D. Ariz., Oct. 15, 2024) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant allegedly subjected the Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, to the Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to compensate its travel agents ("TAs") for their necessary
boot-up and call ready work, which resulted in the failure to
properly compensate the TAs as required under applicable federal
law.
Regardless of whether the Defendant scheduled the Plaintiff to work
a workweek totaling under 40 hours, a workweek totaling 40 hours,
or a workweek totaling in excess of 40 hours, the Plaintiff
regularly worked a substantial amount of time off-the-clock as part
of her job duties as a TA. However, the Defendant never compensated
the Plaintiff for this necessary time worked off-the-clock, the
suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that her rights and the rights of
the FLSA Collective were violated and seeks to recover an award of
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which she and the
proposed Collective may be entitled.
The Plaintiff resided in and worked for the Defendant in Arizona as
a Frontline Agent from March 2023 to Sept. 2023.
Aspire is a provider of travel technology, offering online travel
solutions to tour operators, travel agencies, and other
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard P. Traulsen, Esq.
BEGAM MARKS & TRAULSEN, P.A.
11201 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 110
Phoenix, AZ 85028-6037
Telephone: (602) 254-6071
E-mail: rtraulsen@BMT-law.com
- and -
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
AT&T INC: Montgomery Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alicia LeDuc Montgomery, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-05581 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana on Oct. 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00142-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- an abbreviation for its former
name, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is an American
multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
Benjamin Gould, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
bgould@kellerrohrback.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP (SEA)
999 3rd Ave., Ste. 3900
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 566-7092
Email: avitruk@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Winger Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dina Winger, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01797 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on
Oct. 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00113-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- an abbreviation for its former
name, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is an American
multinational telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 331-5254
Fax: (713) 513-5202
Email: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
- and -
Damon Edwin Mathias, Esq.
Ori Raphael, Esq.
MATHIAS RAPHAEL PLLC
13601 Preston Road, Suite W217
Dallas, TX 75240
Phone: (214) 739-0100
Fax: (214) 739-0151
Email: damon@mrlaw.co
ori@mr.law
- and -
Lori Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton on Hudson, NY 10520
Phone: (917) 983-9321
Fax: (888) 421-4173
Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
C. Shawn Cleveland, Esq.
Tamara D. Baggett, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2850 N Harwood Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-1210
Fax: (214) 210-1201
Email: scleveland@bakerlaw.com
tbaggett@bakerlaw.com
ATHENA COSMETICS: Rush Files Mislabeling Suit Over Beauty Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA RUSH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENA COSMETICS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-08542 (C.D. Cal., October 4, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant arising from the false, misleading, unfair,
and deceptive sale of beauty products without disclosing dangerous
risks and side effects of the products' key ingredient.
Among the Defendant's products are RevitaLash Advanced Eye Serum,
RevitaBrow Advanced Serum, RevitaLash Advanced Pro, and RevitaLash
Advanced Sensitive (hereafter, the "Enhancement Serums" or the
"Products"). Athena deceptively marketed and sold the Enhancement
Serums as cosmetics or so-called "serums" (not as drugs) with no
warning of serious side effects or risks. Instead, Athena touted
the safety of the Enhancement Serums.
Allegedly, Athena did not disclose the risk of any side effects
associated with its Enhancement Serums and has even affirmatively
denied same in its marketing and labeling materials. To the
contrary, Athena falsely implied the Enhancement Serums are
effective at improving the appearance of eyelashes and eyebrows
because of the natural ingredients and "vitamins" contained
therein. However, the longer hair effect is the result of DDDE,
which is associated with many undisclosed side effects, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff is one of many consumers who purchased the
Enhancement Serums.
Athena Cosmetics, Inc. was founded in 2006. The Company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of prescription drugs,
proprietary drugs, and toiletries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter J. Farnese, Esq.
FARNESE P.C.
700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (310) 356-4668
E-mail: pjf@farneselaw.com
- and -
Ruben Honik, Esq.
David J. Stanoch, Esq.
HONIK LLC
1515 Market St., Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 435-1300
E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
david@honiklaw.com
AXIS SURPLUS: Case Management & Sched Order Entered in Renegade
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEGADE GOLF COMPANY, v.
AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:24-cv-00828-WWB-LLL
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Berger entered a case management
and scheduling order as follows:
Mandatory Initial Disclosures: Oct. 25, 2024
Disclosure of Expert Reports
Plaintiff: Sept. 2, 2025
Defendant: Oct. 2, 2025
Rebuttal: Oct. 16, 2025
Deadline for Moving for Class Certification: Oct. 24, 2025
Discovery Deadline: Oct. 31, 2025
Dispositive Motions, and Daubert Motions: Dec. 2, 2025
Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final March 27, 2026
Pretrial Statement:
Joint Final Pretrial Statement: April 6, 2026
Trial Status Conference: April 14, 2026
Mediation Deadline: Nov. 14, 2025
AXIS Surplus offers property, marine, aviation, capital, and
casualty insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9oSHqM at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF MISSOURI: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bank of Missouri.
The case is styled as Laura Smith, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. The Bank of Missouri, Case No.
1:24-cv-00191 (E.D. Mo., Oct. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Bank of Missouri -- https://www.bankofmissouri.com/ -- operates
two banks in Perryville and Jackson, four in Cape Girardeau, and
one each in Scott City, Patton, Marble Hill, Columbia, Steele and
Caruthersville in Missouri, as well as offering full-service
brokerage services and Bank of Missouri Investments and Retirement
Planning division.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas R. Conlon, Esq.
BROWN LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
BASF CORP: Final Approval of Class Settlement in Camden Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs request
that the Court grant their motion for final approval of class
settlement and for final certification of the settlement class.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to:
-- Find the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate;
-- Find that, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class
satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;
-- Grant their Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs;
-- Enter judgment dismissing Claims in the Litigation asserted by
Settlement Class Members against Released Persons; and
- Enter a permanent injunction prohibiting any Settlement Class
Member from asserting or pursuing any Released Claim against
any
Released Person in any forum.
BASF offers chemicals, plastics, performance, and crop protection
products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xsLFbP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A. London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON P.C.
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 566-7500
Facsimile: (212) 566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK
1302 Avenida Ponce de León
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
Telephone: (833) 271-4502
Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@nsprlaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9440
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
BAYER CORP: Newman Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Newman, v. Bayer
Corporation et al., Case No. 7:22-cv-07087-KMK-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order permitting the Plaintiff
to file under seal the portions of Plaintiff's reply in support of
class certification that relies on or mentions documents that have
been previously filed under seal.
Bayer is a German chemical and pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FTbaJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Ave. of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7408
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com
BECHTEL GLOBAL: Parties Must File Joint Submission on Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA D. HANIGAN, et al.
V. BECHTEL GLOBAL CORPORATION, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BECHTEL GLOBAL
CORPORATION, and BECHTEL TRUST & THRIFT PLAN COMMITTEE, Case No.
1:24-cv-00875-AJT-LRV (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Lindsey Robinson
Vaala entered an order that to the extent the parties wish to
propose revisions to the class certification briefing and expert
disclosure deadlines set forth the Rule 16(b) Order, they are
directed to file a joint submission for the Court's consideration.
-- If the parties do not agree regarding the proposed schedule,
they
are directed to file a single joint submission setting forth
each
side's proposal.
-- The joint submission should be filed by no later than 5:00 pm
on
Oct. 16,2024. To be clear, any proposed revisions to the
schedule
should incorporate Jan. 10,2025 as the close of discovery, as
set
forth in the Scheduling Order.
Bechtel is a provider of engineering, construction, and project
management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lga6fi at no extra
charge.[CC]
BETTERHELP INC: Faces Rodarte Over Fraudulent Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNA RODARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BETTERHELP, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
5:24-cv-07154 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 14, 2024) is a class action
complaint and demand for jury trial against the Defendant to stop
it from misleading patients about its mental health therapy
services.
The suit contends that BetterHelp failed to invest in building a
network of qualified therapists large enough to meet demand. By
2020, BetterHelp had hundreds of thousands of paying patients, but
not nearly enough therapists to treat them. Rather than disclose
this overcapacity issue to new patients, BetterHelp creates the
false impression that it has a large enough network of therapists
to meet demand and that new patients will be appropriately matched
with a therapist suitable to treat their specific therapeutic
needs, the suit adds.
In reality, BetterHelp often ignores the patient's stated
therapeutic needs and simply assigns a therapist based on
availability. In fact, many new patients are forced to wait several
weeks or even longer only to eventually be matched with an
unsuitable, unlicensed, or incompatible therapist. While this
"matching" policy might help BetterHelp achieve its short-term
growth and revenue targets, it endangers the patients that put
their trust in BetterHelp to treat their mental health. By
prioritizing its corporate profits over the mental health and
well-being of its patients, BetterHelp has betrayed the very
mission that it claims to uphold. BetterHelp's unethical and
fraudulent business practices are putting vulnerable patients at
risk, depriving them of the care they deserve, and damaging their
trust in the mental health industry, the suit further asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated patients to hold BetterHelp accountable
for its deceptive practices and to send a clear message that mental
health services must prioritize patient well-being and adhere to
ethical standards.
BetterHelp is a for-profit corporation engaged in the practice of
healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
Jared Lucky, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373.9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
jlucky@edelson.com
BIO-LAB INC: Faces Moore Class Action Suit Over Toxic Plume
-----------------------------------------------------------
JHENKIA MOORE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BIO-LAB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and KIK CUSTOM
PRODUCTS INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04651-SEG
(N.D. Ga., Oct. 14, 2024) is a class action lawsuit arising from a
fire, in the early morning of Sept. 29, 2024, in the Defendants'
chemical production facility in Rockdale County, Georgia.
The fire allegedly started after water from a "malfunctioning
sprinkler head 'came in contact with a water reactive chemical.'"
The fire and a resulting days-long chemical reaction caused a plume
of smoke laden with toxic chemicals to rise from the Facility. The
Plume contaminated the air in Rockdale County, across the Atlanta
metro area and surrounding counties, and exposed the Plaintiffs to
massive amounts of toxic chemicals, including chlorine gas, bromine
vapor, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen bromide,
phosgene gas, and other volatile and semi-volatile compound
byproducts, the suit says.
The fire and resulting Plume necessitated a mandatory evacuation of
surrounding residents, and emergency orders to shelter in place,
remain indoors, and caused the shut-down of local businesses, added
the suit.
The Plaintiff avers that the fire, uncontrolled reaction, and Plume
of toxic chemicals was caused by the joint negligence,
carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendants, and is the
fault of the Defendants. As a result of the Facility fire and the
impact of the Plume and the Defendants' actions afterwards, the
Classes have all suffered loss of use and enjoyment of property,
property damage, exposure to toxic material, inconvenience,
disruption, loss of business revenues, and economic damages, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Plaintiff Jhenkia Moore was an adult citizen of Georgia and
occupies the real property located at 1434 Spring Mill Cove NE,
Conyers, within two miles of the Facility and resulting Plume.
Bio-Lab packages and sells pool and spa chemicals under brands
including BioGuard, SpaGuard, Spa Essentials, Natural Chemistry,
SeaKlear, and AquaPill.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert M. Hammers, Jr., Esq.
HAMMERS LAW FIRM, LLC
5555 Glenridge Connector, Ste. 975
Atlanta, GA 30075
BLOOMBERG LP: Conditional Certification Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMBER ADAM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BLOOMBERG L.P.,
Case No. 1:21-cv-04775-JLR-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer
Rochon entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification without prejudice to renew upon a more
developed factual record.
Had Plaintiffs sought to present those declarations on a review of
their conditional certification motion, they should have moved for
judicial notice of them earlier. Even if they had done so, the
Court is not persuaded that they would have changed the result
here.
Amber Adam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, brings this putative class action against Bloomberg L.P.,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
The Plaintiffs allege that Bloomberg engaged in various unlawful
employment practices, including failing to pay overtime wages and
failing to provide accurate wage statements.
Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data,
and media company.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9dnbE1
at no extra charge.[CC]
BLUE CROSS: Settles Antitrust Class Action Claims for $2.8-Bil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that Insurer
Blue Cross Blue Shield has agreed to pay $2.8 billion to resolve
antitrust class action claims by hospital systems, physicians and
other health providers alleging they were underpaid for
reimbursements, the plaintiffs said in an Alabama federal court
filing on Monday, October 14, 2024.
The settlement is the largest ever for a healthcare antitrust case,
they added.
Blue Cross Blue Shield denied the allegations in a statement, but
said it agreed to the settlement and make operational changes to
"put years of litigation behind us."
The providers' lead attorneys, Joe Whatley and Edith Kallas, said
in a statement the proposed settlement would "transform" the
BlueCard program through which providers submit claims.
The agreement is subject to approval from U.S. District Judge R.
David Proctor.
The health providers first sued in 2012, claiming Blue Cross and
its affiliates divided the country into exclusive areas where they
did not compete with each other. The lawsuit said the nationwide
conspiracy increased the cost of insurance and drove down
reimbursements.
Under the settlement, Blue Cross will create a system-wide
information platform facilitating member benefits, eligibility
verification and claims tracking that the attorneys said would lead
to more transparency, efficiency and accountability.
The settlement will also give providers more contracting
opportunities with Blue Cross.
Blue Cross will spend hundreds of millions of dollars implementing
the non-monetary part of the settlement, the filing said.
The settlement covers U.S. healthcare service providers, including
hospitals and some doctors, with Blue plan patients between July
2008 and October 2024.
The lawyers said they would ask for up to $700 million in legal
fees from Blue Cross.
Blue Cross agreed in 2020 to pay $2.7 billion to resolve related
antitrust claims from commercial and individual subscribers. The
U.S. Supreme Court upheld that deal in June. [GN]
BOXART INC: Balzekas Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY VISARIS BALZEKAS IV, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, v. BOXART INC., and DENNIS FISHER, Case No.
1:24-cv-07229 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2024) is a civil action for
damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and
willful violations of the Plaintiffs' rights guaranteed to them by
the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the anti-retaliation provision of the New York Labor Law.
Due to Defendants' violation of the FLSA's and NYLL's
anti-retaliation provisions, the Plaintiff is entitled to
compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, employee benefits the
Plaintiff would have otherwise received, damages for emotional
pain, suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, punitive damages,
liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, the suit
asserts.
Further, from six years prior to the commencement of this action
until the present, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Plaintiffs their wages earned on a weekly
basis and not later than seven calendar days after the end of the
week in which the wages were earned, in violation NYLL section
191.
Due to the Defendants' violations of the NYLL, the Plaintiff and
Rule 23 Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages equal to the
total amount of the delayed wages, attorneys' fees and costs of
this action, the suit adds.
Mr. Balzekas worked for Defendants as laborer from June 1, 2019
until Sept. 10, 2024. 40.
Boxart is a company that builds shipping crates for art
collections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
BUMBLE TRADING: Removes Johnson Suit to C.D. of Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CHRISTINE JOHNSON; and DIANE FOSTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BUMBLE TRADING, LLC; WHITNEY WOLFE HERD; and DOES 1
THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the
lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Riverside (Case No. CVRI2404646) to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Oct. 9, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-02148. The case is assigned to Judge Kenly Kiya
Kato and referred to Magistrate Shashi H. Kewalramani.
Bumble Trading LLC operates an application software. The Company
offers an online dating application that enables users to meet new
people for dating, friendship, and relationship. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Danielle Shrader-Frechette, Esq.
Alex Bergjans, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Email: violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
daniellefrechette@quinnemanuel.com
alexbergjans@quinnemanuel.com
BURRATA BASIL: Garcia Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL GARCIA and MIGUEL CANO VENEGA, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. BURRATA BASIL PIZZA INC. (D/B/A
BURRATA BASIL PIZZA), IBRAHIM KHALF (AKA KHALF IBRAHIM), and EMAD
YOUSSEF, Case No. 1:24-cv-07807 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 15, 2024) seeks for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the N.Y. Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that they worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay the Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium,
the suit contends.
Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10
hours a day. The Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiffs
to all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs aver.
Mr. Garcia was employed by Defendants as a counter worker, cashier
and pizza maker at Burrata Basil Pizza from Jan. 10, 2023 until
Aug. 14, 2023.
Mr. Cano was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer,
dishwasher, porter, and delivery worker at Burrata Basil Pizza from
Feb. 13, 2022, until March 28, 2024.
Burrata Basil is a pizzeria, located at 221 Avenue A, New York, NY
10009.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
CARCO GROUP: Class Cert Bid Deadline Remains Nov. 27
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR v. CARCO GROUP,
INC. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-07547 (D.N.J., Filed Dec. 28, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn entered an order as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff's motion Nov. 27, 2024
for class certification remains:
-- The deadlines as outlined in the Joint Revised Scheduled Order
entered on July 8, 2024, also remain unchanged (with the
exception
of the motion for class certification).
-- There will be a conference call on Dec. 12, 2024, at 11:00
a.m.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Carco operates as a software company.[CC]
CLEARCELL POWER: Hyaxiom Inc. Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Hyaxiom, Inc., f/k/a DOOSAN FUEL CELL AMERICA,
INC., on behalf of itself and all others entitled as Lien Law Trust
Beneficiaries to share in the trust funds created pursuant to
Article 3-A of the Lien Law v. CLEARCELL POWER, INC., ALINA
MEZHIBOVSKY a/k/a ALINA MEZH, VICTOR MEZHIBOVSKY a/k/a VICTOR MEZH,
VM POWER INC., and JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 655445/2024
was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Oct. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-07821.
In the New York County Action, the Plaintiff has claimed, on behalf
of itself and others allegedly similarly situated, that Defendant,
Clearcell, failed to compensate the Plaintiff for the supply of
"certain specialized hydrogen fuel cells and related obligations".
In addition, Plaintiff claims that Clearcell acted in bad faith,
violated the New York Prompt Payment Act, diverted project Trust
Funds, breached its fiduciary duty, fraudulently induced Plaintiff
to perform work, and fraudulently conveyed project proceeds to
non-project recipients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Keith R. Hemming, Esq.
Craig H. Parker, Esq.
Daniel A. Cozzi, Esq.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS P.C
101 Park Avenue 28thFloor
New York, NY 10178
The Defendants are represented by:
Bret L. McCabe, Esq.
FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP
333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
Uniondale, NY 11553
Phone: (516) 248-1700
Fax: (516) 248-1729
Email: bmccabe@forchellilaw.com
CREDITNINJA LENDING: Silva Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Joseph Silva, an individual on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v.
CREDITNINJA LENDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
NINJASERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and JOHN
DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 24CU009015C was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on Oct. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-01870-MMA-AHG.
The Amended Complaint asserts causes of action against Defendants
under California Business and Professions Code. Based on those
purported claims, the Amended Complaint seeks restitution,
injunctive relief including "public injunctive relief," and
attorneys' fees and costs.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott M. Pearson, Esq.
MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.312.4000
Facsimile: 310.312.4224
Email: spearson@manatt.com
- and -
Brandon Wong, Esq.
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: 714.338.2722
Facsimile: 714.371.25
Email: bwong@manatt.com
CRESCA CORP: Must Respond to Ortiz-Vargas Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ortiz-Vargas v. Cresca
Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-01196 (D.P.R., Filed April 26, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernande entered an order re motion
for class certification.
-- The Defendant shall respond not later than Oct. 23, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of Fair Debt Collection Act.[CC]
CURRENEX INC: EFC Bid to Compel Production of Source Code Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDMAR FINANCIAL COMPANY,
LLC, ET AL., v. CURRENEX, INC., ET AL., Case No.
1:21-cv-06598-LAK-HJR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Henry Ricardo
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to compel
production of Currenex's matching algorithm source code and related
documents, and Defendant Currenex, cross-motion to compel
Plaintiffs to produce their foreign exchange ("FX") trading
methodologies and algorithms.
Facts This decision assumes familiarity with the background of this
litigation, which is described in Judge Kaplan's May 18, 2023,
Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motions to
dismiss.
Currenex is a market-leading technology provider offering the FX
community high-performance technology and deep pools of liquidity
for anonymous and disclosed trade execution.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bykfud at no extra
charge.[CC]
DILLARD'S INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Randolph Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA RANDOLPH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dillard's, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-10084 (N.D. Ill.,
Oct. 14, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dillard's provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://Dillards.com, the suit contends.
On July 23, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for an online store
to order high-quality sandals. Thus, while looking online for "flat
summer sandals", she discovered the Defendant's website
Dillards.com. Upon entering and browsing the website, she
encountered numerous accessibility issues, such as non-functioning
filter elements, repetitive alternative descriptions, and
misleading labels of the product links. Due to these problems, she
could not efficiently select a product and its parameters and could
not finalize the purchase, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Dillard's policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Ms. Randolph is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Dillard's offers dresses, jeans, sweaters, sneakers, boots,
sandals, belts, watches, earrings, fragrances, home furniture and
decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Camarena, Esq.
1016 W. Jackson, No. 32
Chicago, IL 60607
Telephone: (312) 493-7494
E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com
DOHMAN AKERLUND & EDDY: Preiss Files Suit in D. Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dohman, Akerlund &
Eddy, LLC. The case is styled as Anthony Preiss, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Dohman, Akerlund &
Eddy, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-03183 (D. Neb., Oct. 15, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Dohman, Akerlund & Eddy, LLC -- https://www.daecpa.com/ -- is a
full service tax, accounting and business consulting firm located
in Aurora, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq.
THE OAKS FIRM
3895 Brookgreen Pt.
Decatur, GA 30034
Phone: (404) 500-7861
Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Patel Suit Over 31.34% Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DHIMANT PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, BERNARD J. ZOVIGHIAN,
LARRY L. WOOD, and SCOTT B. ULLEM, Case No. 8:24-cv-02221 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 14, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Edwards
securities between Feb. 6, 2024 to July 24, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning Edwards' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2024,
particularly as it related to the growth of the Company's core
product, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. The Defendants'
statements included strong commitment to the TAVR platform,
confidence in the Company's ability to capitalize on a subset of
untreated patients through scaling of its various patient
activation activities, and continued claims of significant demand
in allegedly lower-penetrated markets, the suit says.
The Defendants allegedly provided these overwhelmingly positive
statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material adverse facts concerning the true state of Edwards' TAVR
platform.
On July 24, 2024, Edwards unveiled below-expectation financial
results for the second quarter of fiscal 2024 and, in particular,
slashed its revenue guidance for the TAVR platform for the full
fiscal year 2024. Moreover, the Company announced three
acquisitions during the second quarter designed to embolden their
treatments alternative to TAVR, suggesting further that the company
was aware of the potential for the TAVR platform's decelerated
growth.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Edwards' revelations.
The price of Edwards' common stock declined dramatically. From a
closing market price of $86.95 per share on July 24, 2024, Edwards'
stock price fell to $59.70 per share on July 25, 2024, a decline of
about 31.34% in the span of just a single day, the suit further
contends.
The Plaintiff purchased Edwards common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' fraud.
Edwards is an international company that researches, develops,
provides products and technologies for heart valve repair and
replacement therapies, as well as critical care monitoring
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 985-7290
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
ELITE HOME WARRANTY: Hoy Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elite Home Warranty
LLC. The case is styled as Toby Hoy, individually and of behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Elite Home Warranty LLC d/b/a
Elite Home Warranty, Case No. 1:24-cv-07240 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 15,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Elite Home Warranty -- http://www.elitehw.com/-- offers trusted
home warranty plans that are affordable, protecting your home's
appliances and systems with comprehensive coverage plan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 410
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
EMIRATES AIRLINES: Farah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time for
the Plaintiffs to file their anticipated motion for class
certification from Oct. 30, 2024, until Jan. 17, 2025.
The Plaintiffs submit this request because the parties remain in
the process of exchanging discovery relevant to Plaintiffs’
motion for class certification.
Given the nature and volume of outstanding document discovery and
depositions, the requested extension should provide sufficient time
for the parties to complete that discovery, and for Plaintiffs to
finalize their moving papers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vShayJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Evan Brustein, Esq.
BRUSTEIN LAW PLLC
299 Broadway, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 233-3900
Facsimile: (212) 285-0531
E-mail: evan@brusteinlaw.com
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA PICKERING, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE OPERATING INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-05472 (E.D. Pa., Oct. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated customers' sensitive personally identifiable
information, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, and account information.
On April 26, 2024, Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc.
("FBCS") announced that certain systems in its network had been
subject to unauthorized access between Feb. 14 and Feb. 26, 2024,
and that the unauthorized actor had the ability to view or acquire
certain information on the FBCS network during the period of
access.
In a filing with the Office of the Maine Attorney General, FBCS
confirms that the PII of 4,253,394 individuals was exposed by the
Data Breach.
On June 19, 2024, the Defendant began sending out notice letters to
its patients, stating that the Defendant's debt collection agency,
FBCS, had experienced a data breach, which it discovered on Feb.
26, 2024.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of
the Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: invasion of
privacy; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity
costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; an
increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued and
certainly increased risk to their PII, the suit asserts.
Envision Healthcare is a national medical group that works with
healthcare partners, payors, and policymakers to improve patient
services.[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
E-mail: 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
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: 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
E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
EPIC GAMES: Bid for Arbitration in S.T.G. Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Huie of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit titled
S.T.G., S.B.G., and S.J.G., minors, by and through their guardian
SAMUEL GARCIA; I.H. and E.H., minors, by and through their guardian
ARNOLD HERNANDEZ; and M.A. and E.V.A., minors, by and through their
guardian STEPHANIE ALLEN; individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EPIC GAMES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00517-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is a motion to compel arbitration or in the
alternative to transfer venue, filed by Defendant Epic Games, Inc.,
as well as the Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental
authority.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on March 18, 2024,
against the maker of the popular videogame Fortnite. They are seven
minors, who played Fortnite while under the age of 13, who claim
that without their parents' consent, the videogame unlawfully
collected sensitive data protected under the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act ("COPPA"), which the Defendant exploited for
commercial gain.
The Plaintiffs are suing through their guardians ad litem. Although
COPPA itself does not provide a private right of action, the
Plaintiffs bring state law claims for violation of privacy, unfair
competition, and unjust enrichment based on the Defendant's conduct
that is alleged to violate COPPA. The Complaint does not specify
when the Plaintiffs played Fortnite, but asserts that they bring
their claims on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
children under the age of 13, who have been injured by the
Defendant's conduct from July 21, 2017, through Feb. 20, 2023 (the
"Class Period").
On May 20, 2024, the Defendant filed this motion to compel
arbitration. The motion has been fully briefed. Thereafter, the
Defendant filed a motion for leave to file supplemental authority,
which the Plaintiffs oppose.
The Defendant's motion to compel is based on an arbitration
provision in the End User License Agreement ("EULA") that a user
must accept to download Fortnite after first creating an Epic Games
account. Since March 15, 2019, the EULA has required Fortnite users
to arbitrate their disputes with the Defendant. New and existing
Epic Games account holders, who accessed Fortnite for the first
time after March 15, 2019, would see a scroll box displaying the
EULA, with an all-bolded, all-capitalized statement that the EULA
contains a binding arbitration agreement, and that the user has a
time-limited right to opt out. In order to play Fortnite, the user
must click inside a box confirming that the user has read and
agrees with the EULA, and then must click an "Accept" button.
The EULA requires "Disputes" to be "settled by binding individual
arbitration conducted by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation
Services, Inc. ('JAMS') subject to the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act
and federal arbitration law and according to the JAMS Streamlined
Rules and Procedures effective July 1, 2014 (the 'JAMS Rules') as
modified by [the EULA]."
The Defendant states that the Plaintiffs have declined to identify
the Epic Games accounts that they used, but that the Defendant has
identified accounts that appear to be associated with the
Plaintiffs. Each of these accounts accepted the EULA. The Defendant
asserts that each of the Plaintiffs is, therefore, bound by the
arbitration agreement contained in the EULA, including the
provision requiring users to arbitrate disputes about the
"validity, enforceability, or scope" of the arbitration agreement
itself, a so-called "delegation clause" that delegates to the
arbitrator the ability to determine questions of arbitrability.
The Plaintiffs assert that six of the seven Plaintiffs became
parties to the EULA through their respective Epic Games accounts,
but subsequently disaffirmed the EULA; and that the remaining
Plaintiff (E.V.A.) was never a party to the EULA because she used
an Epic Games account created by her mother, rather than creating
her own account.
Two disputes are central to resolving this motion. First, for the
six of seven Plaintiffs, who were parties to the EULA, and who
contend that they subsequently disaffirmed the EULA and its
arbitration agreement, the Parties dispute whether the EULA's
"delegation clause" requires the issue of disaffirmance to be heard
in the first instance by the Court or by an arbitrator. Second, the
Parties dispute whether the seventh Plaintiff, E.V.A., can be bound
by the arbitration agreement contained in the EULA where E.V.A.'s
mother, and not E.V.A., created an Epic Games account and agreed to
the terms of the EULA.
The Parties do not dispute that all seven Plaintiffs are minors.
The Plaintiffs contend that they disaffirmed the EULA by filing
this lawsuit, and three of the seven have submitted declarations
stating that he or she disaffirmed the EULA "in its entirety." The
Defendant responds that under the delegation clause contained in
the EULA, disaffirmance is a question for the arbitrator rather
than the Court.
The Court concludes that the EULA clearly and unmistakably
delegates to the arbitrator questions of the "validity,
enforceability, or scope" of the EULA; and that the Plaintiffs'
claims, as well as their disaffirmance defense, fall within the
scope of the EULA's arbitration agreement. Accordingly, the claims
of S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and M.A. are referred to
arbitration.
Apart from the disaffirmance question, the Plaintiffs contend that
E.V.A. is not bound by the arbitration provision in the EULA
because she never created an Epic Games account and, therefore, is
not a party to the EULA. The Plaintiffs submit a declaration from
E.V.A.'s mother and guardian ad litem, Stephanie Allen, who states
that her child E.V.A. has played Fortnite using an account that she
set up with her email address.
The Court concludes that the Defendant has not, at this time,
established an adequate basis for compelling E.V.A. to arbitrate
under the EULA. The Defendant relies in part on the declaration
submitted with its reply brief, to which the Plaintiffs have not
had an opportunity to respond; and while that declaration addresses
ongoing gameplay in Ms. Allen's account, it cannot ascribe that
gameplay to E.V.A. The only fact in the record specific to E.V.A.'s
gameplay is that E.V.A. "has played Fortnite" using an account set
up by Ms. Allen.
The Court acknowledges that the Defendant, prior to discovery, is
in possession of little information regarding when a particular
minor is playing on a shared Epic Games account, much less other
facts that may be relevant to doctrines of equitable estoppel or
agency. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendant's motion as to
Plaintiff E.V.A. without prejudice to the Defendant renewing such a
motion based on a more complete factual record.
Based on its disposition, the Court denies as moot the Defendant's
motion for leave to file supplemental authority. In ordering
S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and M.A. to proceed to
arbitration, the Court does not rely on the Defendant's
supplemental authority. Nor would that supplemental authority, even
if relied upon by the Court, warrant compelling E.V.A. to arbitrate
at this time.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration as to Plaintiffs S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H.,
E.H., and M.A., and denies without prejudice as to Plaintiff E.V.A.
The Court orders Plaintiffs S.T.G., S.B.G., S.J.G., I.H., E.H., and
M.A. to proceed to arbitration, and their claims--but not the
claims of E.V.A.--are stayed pending the completion of arbitration
proceedings pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 3. The Parties are further
ordered to file a status update on their arbitration proceedings
every ninety (90) days and within seven (7) days of completion of
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5apprva6 from PacerMonitor.com.
FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fruit of the Loom, Inc. d/b/a Vanity Fair Brands, LP,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03915-NEB-ECW (D. Minn., Oct. 15, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant's Website, www.vanityfairlingerie.com, is not
fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have
low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations as well as the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat.; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to the state law.
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by the Defendant's failure to provide its
online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible
with screen reader technology, the suit asserts.
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
Fruit of the loom offers clothing and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, bras, panties, sleepwear, lingerie,
shapewear, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
GILL CORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Ansar Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADNAN ANSAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. THE GILL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-08875 (C.D. Cal., Oct.
15, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure to
protect highly sensitive personal identifiable information.
On June 23, 2024, the Defendant was hacked in the Data Breach.
Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, at least the following
types of PII were compromised: names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, bank account numbers, and W-2 forms. In
total, the Defendant injured at least 3,232 persons—via the
exposure of their PII—in the Data Breach. These 3,232 persons
include its current and former employees. And yet, the Defendant
waited over until Sept. 16, 2024, before it began notifying the
class—a full 85 days after the Data Breach was discovered. Thus,
the Defendant kept the Class in the dark—thereby depriving the
Class of the opportunity to try and mitigate their injuries in a
timely manner, the Plaintiff avers.
Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, the Plaintiff has
suffered—and will continue to suffer from—anxiety, sleep
disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far
beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience, added the suit.
Mr. Ansar is a natural person and citizen of California where he
intends to remain.
Gill manufacturers and sells composite products with a focus on the
aerospace and transportation industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Ste. 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: andrewg@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss in Southfield Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CITY OF SOUTHFIELD FIRE AND POLICE RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. HAYWARD HOLDINGS, INC., KEVIN HOLLERAN, EIFION JONES,
CCMP CAPITAL ADVISORS, LP, and MSD PARTNERS, L.P., Defendants, Case
No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-SDA (D.N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey grants the
Defendants' motions to dismiss.
The lawsuit is a putative securities fraud class action brought by
Lead Plaintiff Fulton County Employees' Retirement System on behalf
of purchasers of Hayward Holdings, Inc., common stock between Oct.
27, 2021, and July 28,2022, inclusive ("Class Period"). Hayward and
individual Defendants Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones (together the
"Hayward Defendants") move to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("CCC") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). MSD
Partners, L.P. ("MSD") and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP ("CCMP") each
also separately move to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Hayward designs and manufactures pool products, such as pumps,
heaters, and filters. Hayward was a family run company until a
consortium led by Defendants CCMP and MSD acquired and took control
of it in 2017. CCMP is a New York-based private equity firm. MSD is
a New York-based investment advisor. CCMP and MSD together replaced
management and installed Holleran as Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") in 2019 and Jones as Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") in
2020. Holleran was also President and Jones was Senior Vice
President at all relevant times.
The majority of Hayward's sales are generated through distributors
in its "channel," who in turn sell to pool builders, retailers, and
servicers. Demand in the pool industry rose at the start of the
Covid pandemic and Hayward's revenue grew by about 20% in 2020,
from $733.4 million in 2019 to $875.4 million in 2020, prompting an
initial public offering ("IPO") in early March 2021. Immediately
following the IPO, CCMP and MSD each owned 30.9% of Hayward's
outstanding common stock and collectively had majority voting
control during the Class Period.
CCMP, MSD, and Alberta Investment Management ("AIMCo"), a Canadian
institutional investment manager that owned 15.91% of Hayward
common stock, entered into a March 16, 2021 Amended and Restated
Stockholders' Agreement that the Plaintiff claims was to coordinate
the voting of their shares collectively. CCMP, MSD, and AIMCo
installed a majority of Hayward's Board of Directors, maintaining a
7-person majority of the 12-13 directors at all relevant times.
In 2021, distributors began to place double orders and "loaded up"
on inventory to avoid logistics and supply chain challenges brought
on by the pandemic. By mid-2021, due to improvement of supply chain
issues as well as Hayward's "stuffing" or saturation of
distribution channel with inventory, there was a significant drop
in the channel's demand for products and selling to distributors
became difficult. To counteract stalling channel demand and
slumping sales, Hayward offered discounts and promotions, resorted
to pressure tactics to prop up revenue, and fulfilled future orders
"way ahead of schedule."
Despite the Defendants' tactics, customers were overwhelmed with
inventory they already had on hand and began cancelling orders
around March 2022. Around the end of February 2022, Jones requested
reports on cancelled orders. Meanwhile, Hayward was locked into
purchasing raw materials, and continued to manufacture at a high
rate in excess of demand, which eventually resulted in over $100
million of excess unsold inventory. The Defendants knew about these
issues, but tried to minimize or conceal them by making a series of
material misrepresentations and omissions during the Class Period
to create the false impression that business was strong thereby
artificially inflating prices.
The Plaintiff alleges that CCMP and MSD exercised control over
Hayward's Board to direct the approval of stock sales at inflated
prices, including a share repurchase program, that enabled CCMP to
offload 4.08 million shares for $80.8 million at above-market
prices in March 2022 and as well as a Secondary Public Offering
("SPO") where CCMP sold 17.6 million for $245.5 million of Hayward
stock in May 2022. Including sale of 2.7 million shares for $53.4
million in January 2022, Defendant CCMP sold nearly 24.4 million
Hayward shares during the Class Period, which was more than 34% of
its stock following the IPO, netting over $379 million. In June
2022, Defendant Jones sold 44.5% of his Hayward stock for about $2
million.
On July 28, 2022, the Defendants issued a press release and held a
conference call in connection with their 2Q-2022 results, finally
disclosing that the channel was saturated with inventory, that
channel demand had significantly dropped, that Hayward was having
difficulty selling to the channel, and that Hayward was producing
finished goods far in excess of demand.
The Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants made materially false
or misleading statements and omissions during Hayward's conference
calls, press releases, presentations, and SEC filings during the
Class Period. After the press release and conference call, on the
last day of the Class Period, July 28, 2022, Hayward's common stock
declined $2.50 per share, or 18.23%, to close at $11.21 per share.
On Dec. 19, 2023, the Court consolidated two separately instituted
suits (23-cv-4146 and 23-cv-20764) and appointed the Lead
Plaintiff. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on March 4,
2021, alleges: (1) Count I - violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all Defendants; and (2) Count
II - violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants, MSD, and CCMP.
In moving to dismiss, the Hayward Defendants, joined by MSD and
CCMP, argue that the securities fraud claim in Count One falls
because the Plaintiff has not pled with sufficient particularity
and has not alleged two key elements -- actionable material
misstatements and scienter. MSD and CCMP claim that the CCC does
not identify any material misstatements that they have made or are
attributable to them. CCMP also moves to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claims arguing that it is not and never has been, a shareholder of
Hayward stock. Finally, the Defendants seek dismissal of Count Two
for shareholder control liability.
At the outset, the Court notes that many of the false and
misleading statements alleged in the CCC are lengthy block quotes
that are at places highlighted with bold and italics. This
formatting leaves the Court and the Defendants to guess whether the
Plaintiff is claiming that only the highlighted portions are
actionable misstatements or the highlighting is merely for emphasis
and the entire paragraph is false or misleading.
Indeed, in addition to lack of clarity regarding which statements
are purportedly actionable, it is also unclear why each statement
is false or misleading, Judge Martini opines. Here, each grouping
of lengthy block quotes and shorter statements are followed by the
same or substantially similar blanket conclusion that the
Defendants' statements were "materially false and misleading and
omitted material information."
Judge Martini holds that these general and conclusory claims do not
explain why or how each statement is false or misleading. The Court
should not be forced to play connect-the-dots in order to identify
the facts and trends upon which plaintiffs base their claim, Judge
Martini points out. The Court also agrees with the Defendants that
the CCC employs impermissible group pleading, which is no longer
viable after enactment of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA").
Because the Plaintiff has not pled its securities fraud claims with
sufficient particularity as required under the PSLRA and Fed. R.
Civ. P. Rule 9(b), Judge Martini holds that the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims is granted.
Count I is dismissed without prejudice against the Hayward
Defendants, but for the reasons discussed here, is dismissed with
prejudice against MSD and CCMP.
Alternatively, MSD and CCMP move to dismiss contending that none of
the statements in Hayward's SEC filings were made by or can be
imputed to either of them and that there is no evidence that they
acted with scienter. The Plaintiff, however, summarily concludes
that Hayward's filings are directly attributable to MSD and CCMP
solely because certain of the Hayward directors, who signed the
risk disclosures in the 2021 Form 10-K and Form S-3 are affiliated
with CCMP and MSD.
Judge Martini grants MSD and CCMP's motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims (Count I). Because repleading Count I
claims against MSD and CCMP would be futile, Count I is dismissed
with prejudice against MSD and CCMP.
Defendant CCMP Capital Advisors, LP, in addition to not being the
"maker" of any of Hayward's statements, also moves to dismiss on
the grounds that it is an improper party because it is a registered
investment adviser that does not, and never has, owned any Hayward
stock. In June 2017, it was CCMP's affiliated funds CCMP Capital
Investors III, L.P., and CCMP Capital Investors III (Employee),
L.P. (together, the "Funds") that invested in Hayward, owned and
sold Hayward stock during the Class Period, as well as participated
in Hayward's stock repurchase program in March 2022 and in a
secondary public offering in May 2022.
Because allegations in the CCC directed at CCMP as a stockholder
are attributable to the Funds, Judge Martini rules that CCMP's
motion to dismiss Count I is granted. Count I against CCMP is
dismissed with prejudice because CCMP is an improper party. The
Plaintiff may amend its 10(b) and 10b-5 claims to add the proper
CCMP affiliated parties.
Because the underlying unlawful conduct is not plead with
particularity, Judge Martini holds that the motion is also granted
as to the Section 20(a) claims. Count II is dismissed without
prejudice against all Defendants.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motions to
dismiss. Count I is dismissed without prejudice against the Hayward
Defendants. Count I is dismissed with prejudice against MSD and
CCMP. Count II is dismissed without prejudice against the
Individual Defendants, CCMP, and MSD. The Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint curing the deficiencies discussed within 30 days
of the date of this Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated Oct. 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4us22mm from PacerMonitor.com.
HP INC: N.D. California Narrows Claims in Pattison Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled MARY PATTISON,
Plaintiff v. HP INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02752-MMC (N.D.
Cal.).
Before the Court is Defendant HP Inc.'s motion, filed Aug. 16,
2024, to dismiss the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and to strike class allegations pursuant to Rule 23(d).
Plaintiff Mary Pattison has filed opposition, to which HP has
replied.
Judge Chesney finds that Pattison (i) has standing to seek relief
based on her not receiving a rebate of the $184.99 she paid for an
"HP Care Pack," and (ii) does not have standing to seek an
injunction to prohibit HP from making misrepresentations in
connection with the sale of Care Packs as she fails to plead any
desire to purchase the product in the future.
HP's late tender to Pattison of the cost she paid for an HP Care
Pack, i.e., $184.99, does not render the case moot, Judge Chesney
holds. Although HP seeks to distinguish cases finding an
"unaccepted offer" to satisfy the lead plaintiff's individual claim
is insufficient to render a putative class action moot.
Judge Chesney opines that the breach of contract claim is subject
to dismissal, as Pattison fails to identify in the FAC any
contractual provision in the HP Care Pack Support Terms under which
a customer, who does not use services during the three-year period,
is entitled to a rebate of the purchase price at the end of such
period, and the HP Care Pack Support Terms contain no such
provision.
To the extent Pattison cites to language on HP's website, Judge
Chesney says Pattison pleads no facts to support a finding said
language constituted an offer that she accepted; rather, it
purports to be descriptive of the HP Care Pack, not to create a
separate agreement. Moreover, the HP Care Pack Support Terms
include an integration clause providing the Terms supersede any
previous communications or agreements that may exist.
To the extent the fraud claim is based on a theory that HP did not
intend to comply with a contractual promise to pay Pattison a full
rebate at the end of the three-year term, the claim is subject to
dismissal as no such contractual term is included in the HP Care
Pack Support Terms, Judge Chesney opines. To the extent the fraud
claim is, however, based on a theory that Pattison, having relied
on the alleged misdescription of the HP Care Pack on HP's website,
purchased the personal computer and paid extra money for the Care
Pack, Judge Chesney holds that the claim is not subject to
dismissal.
Judge Chesney holds that Pattison's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA") claim is not subject to dismissal by reason of a failure
to provide advance notice to HP. Advance notice is not required
where, as here, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. Pattison's
CLRA claim is not subject to dismissal by reason of a failure to
comply with the requirement that a plaintiff attach to the
complaint an affidavit identifying the "county in which the person
against whom it is brought resides, has his or her principal place
of business, or is doing business."
HP offers no evidence to support a finding that Pattison's
declaration that HP "conducts regular and sustained business in San
Mateo County" is incorrect, Judge Chesney notes. Moreover, as the
purpose of the requirement is to identify the "proper place for the
trial," even assuming Pattison should have, as HP asserts,
identified "Santa Clara" as the correct county, any such claimed
error is not a basis for dismissal, as the Northern District of
California includes both San Mateo County and Santa Clara County,
Judge Chesney explains.
Judge Chesney finds the class is not "overbroad" by reason of a
failure to exclude customers who (i) purchased one of the HP Care
Packs that did not include a Risk-Free rebate; (ii) did not
register their Care Pack for the rebate; and (iii) claims would be
barred by a one-year contractual limitations period in the HP Care
Pack Support Terms.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part HP's
motion to dismiss. To the extent HP seeks dismissal of Pattison's
claim for an injunction prohibiting HP from making
misrepresentations on its website about HP Care Packs, the motion
is granted. To the extent HP seeks dismissal of Pattison's breach
of contract claim, the motion is granted. To the extent HP seeks
dismissal of the portion of Pattison's fraud claim based on a
failure to perform contractual obligations, the motion is granted.
In all other respects, the Court denies the motion.
In the event Pattison wishes to amend to cure the deficiencies
identified here, the Court directs Pattison to file a Second
Amended Complaint no later than Oct. 25, 2024. Pattison may not,
however, add new claims or defendants without first obtaining leave
of court. If Pattison does not file a timely Second Amended
Complaint, the instant action will proceed on the remaining
claims.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Oct. 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/te5awen5 from PacerMonitor.com.
IRIS ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 6
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Iris Energy Limited (NASDAQ: IREN) securities
between June 20, 2023 and July 11, 2024. Iris describes itself as a
"leading next-generation data center business powering the future
of Bitcoin, AI and beyond[.]"
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Iris
Energy Limited (IREN) Misled Investors regarding its Prospects with
Data Centers and High-Performance Computing
According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that they
had overstated Iris Energy's prospects with data centers and
high-performance computing, in large part as a result of material
deficiencies in Iris Energy's Childress County, Texas site.
The lawsuit further alleges that on July 11, 2024, Culper Research
issued a report entitled "Iris Energy Ltd (IREN): A Prius at the
Grand Prix." On this news, the price of Iris Energy's stock fell by
more than 15%, according to the complaint.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Iris Energy Limited. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by December 6, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Iris Energy Limited
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr., Esq.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
IRON CUMBERLAND: Gibel Must File Amended Class Complaint by Oct. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON GIBEL, v. IRON
CUMBERLAND, LLC (d/b/a "IRON SENERGY"), Case No.
2:23-cv-02050-WSH-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly
entered a case management order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint Oct. 29,
2024
On or before:
-- The Defendant's Answer to the amended complaint Nov. 18,
2024
on or before:
-- The Parties shall exchange their initial Nov. 8,
2024
Disclosures pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ,P. 26(a)(1):
-- Discovery on the issues pertaining to Class Jan. 8,
2025
Certification shall be completed by:
Iron Senergy is a privately owned, independent energy company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=trflez at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHNNIE-O INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Hedges Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNNIE-O INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07653 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://johnnie-o.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Johnnie-O Inc. started by John O'Donnell in 2005, is a branded
lifestyle apparel company, founded in Santa Monica, CA. [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
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LIGHT & WONDER: Rosen Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Light & Wonder, Inc. (NASDAQ: LNW) resulting from
allegations that Light & Wonder may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Light & Wonder securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29678 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On September 24, 2024, the Las Vegas
Review-Journal published an article entitled "Slot manufacturer
scores major win against Las Vegas-based rival." It stated that
"Aristocrat Technologies Inc.'s request for a preliminary
injunction in its trade-secret and copyright infringement lawsuit
against Light & Wonder" had been granted, and that the "order
prohibits [Light & Wonder] from the ‘continued or planned sale,
leasing, or other commercialization of Dragon Train,' which
Aristocrat claims uses intellectual property developed for its
Dragon Link and Lightning Link games."
On this news, the price of Light & Wonder common stock fell 19.49%
on September 24, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MARS WRIGLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Oct. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine Rodriguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Mars Wrigley Confectionery US, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-04422-AT
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order as
follows:
1. By Oct. 23, 2024, Plaintiffs shall submit their motion for
class
certification;
2. By Nov. 6, 2024, Defendant shall submit its opposition
papers;
3. By Nov. 20, 2024, Plaintiffs shall submit their reply, if
any;
4. By Dec. 18, 2024, Defendant shall submit its motion for
summary
judgment;
5. By Jan. 15, 2025, Plaintiffs shall submit their opposition
papers; and
6. By Jan. 29, 2025, Defendants shall submit its reply, if any.
Mars is a manufacturer of chocolate, chewing gum, mints and fruity
confections.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3CCHJD at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAXCO SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Cooke, writing for Fox26News, reports that it's just another
work day for people at the Maxco plant, even though Maxco is in the
middle of a class action lawsuit filed by employees.
The company is in the business of food packaging and has three
different locations in Reedley, Parlier, and Fowler.
According to court documents, current and former employees of the
company are suing Maxco for unpaid wages and bad labor practices.
In the lawsuit, a total of 10 different complaints are listed.
Dating back at least four years prior to the complaint filed on
June 14th this year, Abdon Elizondo III and other employees claim
the company violated the state wage and hour laws related to things
like inconsistent pay or not being paid at all for things like
vacation, overtime and breaks.
Some examples given in the complaint state that Maxco was . . .
failing to accurately track and/or pay for all hours actually
worked at the proper overtime rate of pay.
This included having employees work before they clocked in after
they clocked out, and even during their meal breaks.
When workers looked at their checks, they noticed there was . . .
editing and/or manipulation of time entries to show less hours than
actually worked; failing to pay split shift premiums; and failing
to pay reporting time pay to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class
Members.
If an employee was let go or resigning, the suit states that Maxco
have . . . had a consistent policy of failing to provide Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees or former employees within the
State of California with compensation at their final rate of pay
for unused vested paid vacation days pursuant to Labor Code section
227.3.
Because of how many complaints are listed, employees in the suit
hope this case will be approved for a jury trial. [GN]
MINDLANCE HEALTH: Fails to Timely Pay Patient Care Workers' Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH ABBA, individually and for all others similarly situated v.
MINDLANCE HEALTH LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07224 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 15,
2024) seeks to recover untimely wages, unpaid overtime wages, and
other damages from the Defendant, pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.
Despite being manual workers, Mindlance fails to properly pay Abba
and the other Patient Care Workers their wages within seven
calendar days after the end of the week in which they earned such
wages. Instead, Mindlance uniformly pays Abba and the other Patient
Care Workers on a bi-weekly basis, the suit alleges.
Additionally, Mindlance does not pay Abba and the other Patient
Care Workers for all the hours they work. Instead, Mindlance
requires Abba and the other Patient Care Workers to complete
training modules before and/or after their regularly scheduled
shifts. Completing each training module takes Abba and the other
Patient Care Workers approximately 1 to 3 hours "off the clock."
Abba and the other Patient Care Workers are thus not paid for this
time.
Mindlance's training policy violates the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and NYLL by depriving Abba and the other Patient Care
Workers of overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
each workweek, the suit asserts.
Ms. Abba was employed by the Defendant as a patient care assistant
from November 2021 through March 2024.
Mindlance is a healthcare staffing firm that employs numerous
people in New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MISS JESSIE'S: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Heges Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MISS JESSIE'S, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07654 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://missjessies.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Miss Jessie's LLC was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes the manufacturing of miscellaneous fabricated
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Reyes Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02572-N (N.D. Tex., Oct. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated customers of the Defendant.
The suit says that the infiltration occurred between Sept. 20 and
Sept. 22, 2024, but the Defendant did not discovery the Data Breach
until Sept. 27, 2024. As part of the Data Breach, cybercriminals
gained access to Defendant MoneyGram's information systems,
performed its reconnaissance measures, and stole a trove of
consumer data before the Defendant even noticed. The compromised
information includes names, Social Security numbers, government
identification information, transaction information, email
addresses, postal addresses, names, phone numbers, utility bills,
bank account information, MoneyGram Plus Rewards information, and
some criminal investigation information for a limited number of
customers.
Because of Defendant's ineffective and inadequate data security
practices, the Data Breach, and the foreseeable consequences of PII
ending up in the possession of criminals, the risk of identity
theft to the Plaintiff and Class Members has materialized and is
imminent, and Plaintiff and Class Members have all sustained actual
injuries and damages, including: invasion of privacy; loss of time
and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk
and imminent threat of identity theft risk; the loss of benefit of
the bargain (price premium damages); diminution of value of their
PII; invasion of privacy; and the continued risk to their PII, the
lawsuit contends.
Plaintiff Reyes is a resident and citizen of Mission Viejo,
California, where he intends to remain.
MoneyGram provides money transfer and payment services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
NEW YORK, NY: Expert Disclosures in United Suit Due Nov. 8,
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED PROBATION OFFICERS
ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of its members, JEAN BROWN,
TANGA JOHNSON, TARA SMITH, EMMA STOVALL, and CATHY WASHINGTON, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated individuals,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 1:21-cv-00218-RA-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order as follows
1. Defendant's expert disclosures shall be made by Nov. 8, 2024.
2. Depositions of experts shall take place between Nov. 18,
2024,
and Nov. 27, 2024 (inclusive).
3. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on
or
before Dec. 17, 2024. Briefing thereafter shall be in
accordance
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GUaIus at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement in Weiner Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WEINER,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-02597-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel
Calabretta entered an order that:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement is granted and the Court approves the Settlement
as
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the result of arm's-length
informed negotiations;
-- The Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and
litigation expenses is granted;
-- The Court confirms the appointment Baron & Budd, P.C. as
Settlement Class Counsel;
-- The Court confirms the appointment of David Weiner as
Settlement
Class Representative;
-- The Court confirms JND Legal Administration as the Notice and
Settlement Administrator that will oversee and administer the
Settlement Fund;
-- The Court grants Settlement Class Counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and costs, and awards Settlement Class
Counsel
$7,915,313.25 in attorneys' fees and $953,106.45 in
reasonable
expenses, to be paid by Defendants;
-- The Court awards a service award of $5,000 to the Settlement
Class Representative David Weiner, to be paid by the
Defendants;
Ocwen provides residential and commercial mortgage loan servicing,
special servicing, and asset management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6bOd33 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SPECIALTY: Reply to Opposition Extended to Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joel Slomsky entered
an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend
deadlines.
-- The Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Class
Certification shall be filed by Oct. 24, 2024.
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://urlcurt.com/u?l=hA3oIP at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROJECT E: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Fontan Due August 1, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID FONTAN, v. PROJECT E
BEAUTY, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02167-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling order
as follows:
Event Deadline
Parties Certifications of Conflicts and Oct. 11, 2024
Interested Entities or Persons
Status report re ADR Nov. 12, 2024
Last day to add parties or amend pleadings Nov. 22, 2024
Parties to exchange initial disclosures Dec. 9, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class certification Aug. 1, 2025
and class certification expert reports
Defendant's opposition to motion for class Sept. 2, 2025
certification and opposing class
certification expert reports, Daubert
motion(s)
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion Oct. 2, 2025
for class certification and rebuttal class
certification expert reports, Daubert
motions, and opposition(s) to Defendant's
Daubert motion(s)
Close of fact discovery Nov. 26, 2025
Hearing on motion for class certification To be noticed by
the
and Daubert motions parties based on
the
Court's
availability
at the time of
filing.
Project E Beauty specializes in red light therapy.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SNLYgm at no extra
charge.[CC]
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Dawkins Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loraine Dawkins, and all others similarly situated v. Publix Super
Markets, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-61918 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 15, 2024)
seeks redress for Defendant's unfair, misleading and deceptive
practices in the pricing of its products, which has caused
financial harm to the Plaintiff and consumers.
According to the complaint, Publix has engaged in a systematic
practice of misrepresenting the "Unit "Price" of various products
to appear as though they are offered at a lower price than what is
actually charged at the point of sale, all for the purpose of
increasing its profits. Specifically, Publix misrepresents the Unit
Price of 24 packs of Swiffer Wet Mopping Cloths Fresh Scent and 24
Packs of Swiffer Wet Mopping Cloths Lavender with Febreze; Viva
Signature Cloth Paper Towels 8=16; and Scott Paper Towles Fast
Absorbing 6=12.
On Sept. 18, 2024, a Publix where the Plaintiff, Loraine Dawkins,
shops in Pembroke Pines, Florida located at 3102 Griffin Road, sold
Swiffer Products for $12.49, with a Unit Price of $0.4461 per each;
however, the true cost is $0.5204 an almost 15% pre-tax
difference.
Indeed, upon investigation, Publix appears to misrepresent the Unit
Prices of Swiffer Products, Viva Products and Scott Products up and
down the State of Florida. Furthermore, this is not a one-time
phenomenon. Rather, the Unit Price misrepresentation was not fixed
even when a price increase or decrease has occurred in the Swiffer
and Scott Products. As a result of these deceptive practices, the
Plaintiff and the Class paid 10-15% more for products than Publix
represented they would cost, resulting in economic injury. Also, by
relying on the misrepresented Unit Price, consumers make incorrect
decisions. Publix's conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive acts
or practices in violation of state consumer protection laws,
including but not limited to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, says the suit.
Publix operates numerous retail grocery stores throughout Florida
and other states, selling a wide range of food and household
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ely R. Levy, Esq.
LEVY & PARTNERS, PLLC
3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
E-mail: elevy@lawlp.com
aylin@lawlp.com
christina@lawlp.com
QUICK BOX: Class Action Settlement in Tan Suit Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEANNE TAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. QUICK BOX, LLC,
et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Linda Lopez entered an order granting motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement as follows:
The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class
for settlement purposes only:
"All consumers in the United States who, during the Class
Period,
were billed for products sold, shipped, or caused to be sold or
shipped by any of the Defendants under the La Pura, La'Pura,
La’
Pura or LaPura or any similar brand name, including any La Pura
Product marketed or otherwise promoted by Rocket Management
Group."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are:
(i) jurists and mediators who are or have presided over the
Action, Plaintiff's Counsel and Defendants’ Counsel,
their
employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors,
assigns,
or any members of their immediate family;
(ii) any government entity;
(iii) The Konnektive Parties and any entity in which The
Konnektive
Parties have a controlling interest, any of their
subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors,
employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns, or any members of their immediate family; and (iv)
any persons who timely opt out of the Settlement Class.
The Court designates Plaintiff LeAnne Tan as Class Representative
The Court further finds that the following counsel fairly and
adequately represented, and continues to represent the interests of
the Settlement Class in all regards, including for settlement
purposes and hereby appoints them as counsel for the Settlement
Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g):
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.,
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Settlement in Grady Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY, et al., v.
RCM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order conditionally
granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement.
The amended Settlement Agreement and Notice shall:
Remove Nathan Piller as Class Counsel;
Remove the provision designating the Court to resolve work shift
disputes;
Account for the possibility of further rounds of payment
distribution to Class Members, prior to payment to a cy pres
beneficiary;
Provide an accurate estimate for the costs of Settlement
administration;
State that Class Members may enter an appearance through an
attorney if desired;
Absent a declaration explaining why emailed notice is not
feasible,
provide for Class notice by email; and
Clarify that an e-signature is acceptable for all submissions to
the Settlement Administrator.
In sum, having considered requirements of Rule 23(a) and the
non-exclusive factors set forth under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court
finds that the proposed Class may be certified under Rule 23(b)(3).
The Court conditionally certifies the Class for settlement purposes
only.
The proposed Settlement Class is defined as
"all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendant
who
were nurses assigned by Defendant to staff COVID-19 testing
and/or
vaccination sites for San Bernardino County (including
assignments
at San Bernardino County's Arrowhead Regional Medical Center),
and
at K-12 schools for Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD),
or
Ginkgo Concentric (Ginkgo) during the Class Period and who do
not
submit a timely and valid request for exclusion from the
settlement."
RCM is a specialty healthcare staffing company that employs
traveling nurses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z965bW at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Faces Class Action Suit Over Video Voyeurism
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE (S.F.), on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated passengers v. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., and
ARVIN JOSEPH MIRASOL, Case No. 1:24-cv-23953-JAL (S.D. Fla., Oct.
15, 2024) alleges that Defendant Mirasol taped a video camera
containing a memory card in her passenger cabin bathroom and
captured images of her while undressed and engaging in private
activities, without her prior knowledge or consent.
According to the complaint, Mr. Mirasol transmitted and/or uploaded
images of the Plaintiff while undressed and engaging in private
activities, to third parties and/or to the world wide web,
including, but not limited to, the dark web, without the
Plaintiff's prior knowledge or consent.
As a result of Mirasol's actions, the Plaintiff reasonably believes
that images of Plaintiff undressed while engaging in private
activities have been distributed in a manner to allow them to be
able to be immediately reproduced and posted to the world wide web,
including the dark web, says the suit.
The Plaintiff contends that she lives in a constant fear,
reasonably under the circumstances, that images of her undressed
while engaging in private activities are regularly viewed by others
and used for illicit purposes.
The passengers, including Plaintiff, are those who sailed aboard
the Symphony of the Seas between December 1, 2023, and February 26,
2024, who used a cabin bathroom which was within the cabins
assigned to Stateroom Attendant Arvin Joseph Mirasol.
RCCL employed and controlled Mr. Mirasol as a crewmember assigned
as a stateroom attendant aboard the vessel.
RCCL owned, operated, managed, maintained and/or controlled the
vessel, the Symphony of the Seas (the "vessel").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Margulies, Esq.
Michael A. Winkleman, Esq.
Jacqueline Garcell, Esq.
LIPCON, MARGULIES,
& WINKLEMAN, P.A.
2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1480
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 373-3016
Facsimile: (305) 373-6204
E-mail: jm@lipcon.com
mwinkleman@lipcon.com
jgarcell@lipcon.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Weaver Suit Transferred to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jonathan Weaver and Jennifer Carter, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
SNOWFLAKE, INC. and AT&T INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01915 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on
Oct. 15, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00141-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Snowflake Inc. -- https://www.snowflake.com/en/ -- is an American
_cloud computing–based data cloud company based in Bozeman,
Montana.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce W. Steckler
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elinor Catherine Sutton, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
3100 McKinnon Street, Suite 1125
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (469) 902-3600
Fax: (469) 902-3610
Email: elinorsutton@quinnemanuel.com
- and -
C. Shawn Cleveland, Esq.
Tamara D. Baggett, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2850 N Harwood Street, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 210-1210
Fax: (214) 210-1201
Email: scleveland@bakerlaw.com
tbaggett@bakerlaw.com
SOLACIUM HOLDINGS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 19, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERENITY SPINDEL, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. SOLACIUM HOLDINGS LLC dba EMBARK BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No.
5:24-cv-00552-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Eumi Lee entered a
joint case management statement as follows:
-- Mediation Date: Dec. 12, 2024
-- Expert Disclosure (Initial) May 20, 2025
-- Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal) June 19, 2025
-- Last day for filing Motion for June 19, 2025
Class Certification
-- Opposition for Motion for Aug. 4, 2025
Class Certification:
Solacium specializes in a range of business ventures and
investments.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=idOno9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James M. Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
100 Pine St., Ste 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 534-1911
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
- and -
Sam Karimzadeh, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SAM KARIMZADEH
1484 Pollard Road #3008
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: (408) 669-0811
E-mail: sam@samesqlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad D. Greeson, Esq.
Helen Braginsky, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
Treat Towers, Suite 600
1255 Treat Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Telephone: (925) 932-2468
Facsimile: (925) 946-9809
E-mail: cgreeson@littler.com
hbraginsky@littler.com
SPIRE RECOVERY: Randolph Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spire Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Joe R. Randolph,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Spire Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02316 (S.D. Ill.,
Oct. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Spire Recovery Solutions -- https://spirerecoverysolutions.com/ --
is a professional debt collection agency helping creditors and
consumers to come together for account resolution.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD
2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181 x114
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Removes Hill Suit to W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JEFFREY HILL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRIT
HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES LLC; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of Washington, County of King (Case No. 24-2-20131-9 SEA) to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on Oct.
9, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-01644.
Spirit Halloween Superstores, LLC is an American seasonal retailer
that supplies Halloween decorations, costumes, props and
accessories. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Peter H. Nohle, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
520 Pike Street, Suite 2300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 626-6436
Email: Peter.Nohle@jacksonlewis.com
SWIFTMERGE ACQUISITION: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aleanna
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Swiftmerge Acquisition Corp. (Nasdaq: IVCP), relating
to its proposed merger with AleAnna Energy, LLC. Under the terms of
the agreement, each share of Swiftmerge common stock will
automatically be converted into one share of the surviving
company.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/swiftmerge-acquisition-corp/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Cert of OT Collective
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ACACSHA JACKSON,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TEAM
DISCOVERY, LLC, LAURENCE TRIMBLE, and TREVOR TRIMBLE, Case No.
2:24-cv-00399-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying the Overtime Collective as:
"All persons who have been employed as caregivers by Team
Discovery, LLC, at any time during the past three years and
who
worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the
past three years."
2. Appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C. as Collective Counsel;
3. Approving the form and content of the proposed notice as
timely,
accurate, and informative, and otherwise appropriate;
4. Directing Collective Counsel to send the approved notice to
the
Overtime Collective by mail, email, and text message within
14
days of receipt of receiving the collective members' contact
information from Defendants;
5. Directing Collective Counsel to send the approved notice via
email and text message to Overtime Collective members who
have
not yet submitted a consent to join form halfway through the
notice period;
6. Prohibiting Defendants from communicating with Overtime
Collective members about this lawsuit in any way from the
date
of the Court's order on this motion through the close of the
notice period other than to direct inquiring Overtime
Collective
members to contact Collective Counsel as set forth in the
approved notice;
7. Directing the Defendants to provide Collective Counsel with a
list identifying all persons known to Defendants to meet the
Overtime Collective definition, including their first names,
last names, last known street addresses, city, state, zip
code,
phone numbers, email addresses, dates of employment, and last
four digits of social security numbers in a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet, with each piece of data as a separate column,
within 10 days of the Court’s order granting this motion;
and
8. Permitting Overtime Collective members 60 days from the first
sending of the approved notice to opt into this lawsuit.
Team Discovery is a senior living provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DTABbS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 607-6079
E-mail: cclegg@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
THIS IS L: E. D. New York Refuses to Dismiss Seaman Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled BARBARA SEAMAN, Plaintiff v. THIS IS L., INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03524-ARR-JAM (E.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Barbara Seaman brings this putative class action against
Defendant This Is L., Inc., asserting claims under New York's
General Business Law ("GBL"), and an alternative claim of unjust
enrichment.
According to the Plaintiff's complaint, the Defendant manufactures
and markets tampons whose packaging includes a misleading
statement: "NO CHLORINE BLEACHING, DYES OR FRAGRANCES." While
neither party disputes the literal truth of this statement, the
Plaintiff contends that the statement is nevertheless misleading
because the tampons in fact contain titanium dioxide, which is a
synthetically prepared powder used as a white pigment.
The Defendant has moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint under
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure
to state a claim, arguing that the statement in question cannot be
misleading as a matter of law because the product's label does not
state that the tampons contain no coloring and affirmatively
discloses the use of titanium dioxide.
Defendant This Is L., Inc., manufactures and markets "L."-branded
tampons (the "product"). The front label of the product contains,
inter alia, the following statement: "NO RAYON, CHLORINE BLEACHING,
DYES OR FRAGRANCES." While the Plaintiff concedes that this
statement is "literally true," she contends that it is nevertheless
"misleading" because the product in fact contains "titanium
dioxide, a synthetically prepared powder used as a white pigment."
Plaintiff Barbara Seaman is a resident of Brooklyn, New York.
Desiring to purchase tampons that do not add unnecessary
ingredients, such as coloring, she purchased the Defendant's
product on several occasions at various stores in or near the
Flatbush neighborhood of Brooklyn, including between 2021 and 2024
at Duane Reade, CVS, Walgreens, and Target.
The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit, asserting claims under Sections
349 and 350 of the New York GBL, as well as a claim of unjust
enrichment. She seeks to represent a class under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23, defined as "all persons in New York who purchased the product
during the statutes of limitations for each cause of action
alleged."
Judge Ross notes that the core of the dispute between the parties
is whether the language on the back of the product's label
(disclosing the presence of titanium dioxide as a whitening agent)
is sufficient as a matter of law to appropriately clarify a
reasonable consumer's understanding of the ambiguous and
potentially misleading statement on the front of the label.
Judge Ross concludes that the Plaintiff has (i) sufficiently
alleged that the Defendant's statements on the front of the product
would mislead a reasonable consumer, and (ii) plausibly alleged
injury and causation. Since the Plaintiff has alleged that she was
charged a price premium due to the Defendant's allegedly misleading
statement, Judge Ross finds she has sufficiently alleged injury for
purposes of the GBL. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendant's
motion to dismiss on this basis.
The Plaintiff's complaint includes an additional claim of unjust
enrichment, seeking restitution and disgorgement of the Defendant's
profits allegedly obtained through deception. The Defendant moves
to dismiss this claim, arguing both that it fails for the same
reason as her GBL claims and that regardless, the unjust enrichment
claim also fails as duplicative of her claim under the GBL.
Having concluded that the Plaintiff sufficiently made out her claim
under the GBL, Judge Ross needs only consider whether her unjust
enrichment claim is impermissibly duplicative of her GBL claim.
Although the law on this issue is not free from doubt, Judge Ross
concludes that the Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim may proceed
at this time, and denies the Defendant's motion to dismiss this
claim.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in its entirety.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order dated Oct. 2, 2024,
is available at https://tinyurl.com/4jkymt52 from
PacerMonitor.com.
TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that In April,
the hacker group ShinyHunters accessed Ticketmaster's database. It
harvested the full names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and
credit card information on up to 560 million customers. The Live
Nation-owned company took nearly two months to discover the breach
and four months to notify impacted users.
Now, Ticketmaster is facing a proposed class action accusing it of
failing to adopt adequate security measures to prevent against
hacks, alert users that their personal data was compromised and
ensure that a cloud computing vendor implemented sufficient data
security practices. The lawsuit, filed on Friday, October 11, in
California federal court, alleges negligence and seeks unspecified
damages of at least $5 million on behalf of millions of users.
The Ticketmaster hack was the latest in a string of cyberattacks
this year targeting media and telecom companies, including Disney,
Roku and AT&T. ShinyHunters, the group that claimed responsibility
for the breach, demanded a ransom of $500,000 to keep the data from
being resold on the dark web.
The lawsuit claims that the hack was a consequence of Ticketmaster
neglecting to implement proper data protection procedures,
including "vendor management necessary to protect" consumers'
personally identifiable information amid a rising wave of
high-profile breaches.
The hacks, along with AT&T's, was connected to a third-party server
hosted by the cloud computing company Snowflake. Users fault
Ticketmaster for failing to ensure that Snowflake, which wasn't
named in the complaint, adhered to reasonable security measures.
They call cyber attacks a "known risk" and that "failing to take
steps necessary to secure [user information] from those risks left
the data in a dangerous condition."
Ticketmaster should've have required Snowflake to impose heightened
measures to protect personal data, cooperate with security audits
and timely notify users impacted by a hack, according to the
complaint.
Users also fault Ticketmaster for retaining personal information it
should've deleted. They claim that one arm of the company's
business involves selling data on users — including when a
customer buys merchandise or a ticket to an event, names, physical
addresses, phone numbers, emails, IP addresses, information about
certain transactions and preferences — to business partners and
data brokers.
The lawsuit alleges that consumers are harmed by increased risks of
identify theft, fraud and spam. Since 2020, ShinyHunters have
stolen over 900 million customer records in hacks of AT&T, GitHub
and Pizza Hut, among other companies. With the wide swath of data
available to the group, it can create so-called "Fullz" packages,
which cross-references multiple sources of personal data to
assemble complete dossiers on individuals, the lawsuit claims. Even
without certain information, like a social security number, these
packages can be used to fraudulently obtain fake driver's licenses
and loans.
And the value of this data is increasing because of new
technologies that facilitate avenues for fraud. Cybercriminals are
leveraging stolen information to devise increasingly complicated
schemes featuring deepfake technology and AI-powered password
cracking.
Users "now face years of constant surveillance of their financial
and personal records," the complaint states. In addition to
negligence, users bring claims for unjust enrichment and breach of
implied contract.
Some categories of sensitive personally information can sell for as
much as roughly $360 per record, according to the cybersecurity
training company InfoSec Institute.
Ticketmaster didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The April hack preceded by the Justice Department filing an
antitrust lawsuit against the company. [GN]
TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Specialist's Minimum & OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIO K. CORDOBA RIVERA, on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. TRICOLOR CALIFORNIA AUTO GROUP, LLC, a limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV26988
(Cal. Super., Oct. 15, 2024) is an action against the Defendants
for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of
2004, the California Labor Code section 2698, et. seq., stemming
from the Defendants failure to pay employees for all hours worked,
including all minimum and overtime wages.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to provide employees with timely
and duty-free meal periods, maintain accurate records of all meal
periods taken or missed, and pay an additional hour's pay for each
workday a meal period violation occurred, in compliance with the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the suit alleges.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to indemnify Plaintiff for necessary
business expenses, failed to timely pay all final wages to the
Plaintiff when Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's employment,
and failed to furnish accurate wage statements to the Plaintiff,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a California resident who worked for the
Defendants as a customer specialist.
Tricolor is a financial services company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
Jacquelyne P. VanEmmerik, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
jvanemmerik@moonlawgroup.com
TTEC SERVICES: Fails to Pay Remote Workers' OT Wages, Alvarez Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LOREN ALVAREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847 (D.
Colo., Oct. 15, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime pay in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act, and
for unpaid regular wages and unlawful deductions from wages in
violation of the Virginia Wage Payment Act.
The Defendant has violated and continues to violate the FLSA and
VOWA by having a policy or practice of requiring remote workers to
purchase, as a condition of employment, without reimbursement,
tools which are specifically required by Defendant for the
performance of its work. Such tools include high speed internet
service satisfying Defendant's performance requirements, ethernet
equipment, and computers satisfying Defendant’s performance
requirements. This policy and practice resulted and results in
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime
wages than they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA, as
the tool costs cut into the overtime wages required to be paid to
them, the suit contends.
The Plaintiffs brings this action as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), and for the state law claims only, as a class action
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Plaintiff Alvarez is a resident of Virginia who worked remotely
from her home for the Defendant from June 2020 to March 21, 2024.
TTEC is in the business of operating remote call centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
- and -
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Telephone: (434) 218-3133
Facsimile: (434) 321-1636
E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Klare Class Cert Hearing Continued to Dec. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KLARE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order granting the join stipulation and
application for continuance of the Nov. 7, 2024, hearing on the
motion for class certification to Dec. 12, 2024.
Counsel for Mr. Klare who intends to argue the Motion has an
unavoidable personal conflict requiring them to be in Louisiana on
Nov. 7, 2024, and precluding their ability to argue the motion in
California on the same day. After conferring with counsel for the
Defendant, given previously scheduled mediations and hearings in
other cases, the Parties' first available date to argue the Motion
is Dec. 12, 2024.
The Parties have not previously requested a continuance of class
certification briefing deadlines or the Motion hearing. The Court
granted a previous Stipulation extending discovery and
expert-related deadlines on March 11, 2024. The Court granted
another Stipulation requesting class certification briefing
deadlines and again briefly extended expert-related deadlines on
May 29, 2024.
On Oct. 7, 2024, the Parties submitted their joint briefing on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Westlake offers auto finance, equity loans, and other financial
products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C4Y33m at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan R. Marshal, Esq.
Denali S. Hedrick, Esq.
BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
dhedrick@baileyglasser.com
- and -
David D Bibiyan, Esq.
Zachary Chrzan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP
1460 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
zach@tomorrowlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sarah Reise, Esq.
David Gettings, Esq.
Jonathan Kenney, Esq.
Katalina Baumann, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER
HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Telephone: (757) 687-7500
Facsimile: (757) 687-7510
E-mail: sarah.reise@troutman.com
dave.gettings@troutman.com
jon.kenney@troutman.com
katalina.baumann@troutman.com
XIAO-I CORPORATION: Fan Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yunfan Fan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. XIAO-I CORPORATION, HUI YUAN, WEI WENG, WENJING CHEN,
XIAOMEI WU, JUN XU, ZHONG LIN, H. DAVID SHERMAN, GREGORY K. LEE,
and GKL CORPORATE/SEARCH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07837 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 15, 2024), is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons
and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise
acquired: Xiao-I American depository shares ("ADSs") pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about
March 9, 2023 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); and/or Xiao-I securities
between March 9, 2023 and July 12, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Defendants had downplayed the true scope and severity of
risks that Xiao-I faced due to certain of its Chinese shareholders'
non-compliance with Circular 37 Registration, including the
Company's inability to use Offering proceeds for intended business
purposes; Xiao-I failed to comply with GAAP in preparing its
financial statements; Defendants overstated Xiao-I's efforts to
remediate material weaknesses in the Company's financial controls;
Xiao-I was forced to incur significant R&D expenses to effectively
compete in the AI industry; Xiao-I downplayed the significant
negative impact that such expenses would have on the Company's
business and financial results; accordingly, Xiao-I overstated its
AI capabilities, R&D resources, and overall ability to compete in
the AI market; as a result of all the foregoing, there was a
substantial likelihood that Xiao-I would fail to comply with the
NASDAQ's Minimum Bid Price Requirement; and as a result, the
Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the
Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
On July 27, 2023, the SEC issued a letter to Xiao-I to address,
inter alia, the Company's failure to comply with GAAP in preparing
its financial statements in its 2022 annual report, as well as the
need for more explicit disclosures in the report's risk factors
section concerning certain of the Company's Chinese shareholders'
non -compliance with Circular 37 Registration, particularly with
respect to the Company's inability to use Offering proceeds for
intended business purposes.
On September 25, 2023, Xiao-I issued a press release announcing its
unaudited, unreviewed financial results for the first half of 2023,
including, inter alia, a net loss of $18.8 million for the first
half of 2023, compared to a net income of $0.6 million for the same
period of 2022. On this news, Xiao-I's ADS price1 fell $0.30 per
ADS, or 14.22%, to close at $1.81 per ADS on September 25, 2023.
On October 20, 2023, Xiao-I issued a press release announcing its
unaudited, reviewed financial results for the first half of 2023.
On this news, Xiao-I's ADS price fell $0.03 per ADS, or 1.79%, to
close at $1.65 per ADS on October 20, 2023. On April 30, 2024,
Xiao-I issued a press release announcing its unaudited full year
("FY") 2023 financial results, including, inter alia, FY 2023
revenues of $59.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $30.08
million, as well as a net loss of $27 million for FY 2023, compared
to a net loss of $6 million for FY 2022. On this news, Xiao-I's ADS
price fell $0.08 per ADS, or 6.15%, to close at $1.22 per ADS on
April 30, 2024.
Then, on July 15, 2024, Xiao-I issued a press release announcing
"that it received a notification letter dated July 11, 2024 (the
'Deficiency Letter') from the Listing Qualifications Department of
the [NASDAQ], indicating that the Company is no longer in
compliance with the minimum bid price requirement as set forth in
Nasdaq Listing Rule as the Company's closing bid price per ADS has
been below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business days." On
this news, Xiao-I's ADS price fell 2.28% to close at approximately
$0.67 per ADS on July 15, 2024.
As of the time this Complaint was filed, the price of Xiao-I ADSs
continues to trade below the $6.80 per share Offering price,
damaging investors. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff, purchased or otherwise acquired Xiao-I ADSs pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the IPO and/or Xiao-I securities during the Class Period.
Xiao-I, through its subsidiaries, operates as a global AI
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
James M. LoPiano, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Phone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
jlopiano@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
ZOETIS INC: Faces Suit Over Librela Drug Adverse Reaction to Dogs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges the maker of canine osteoarthritis drug
Librela has failed to adequately warn pet owners of the dangers of
the product and misrepresented that the treatment is safe and
effective for dogs.
The 38-page lawsuit shares that Librela, the brand name version of
bedinvetmab, has been linked to thousands of reports of adverse
events in dogs, including behavior changes, urinary incontinence,
seizures, worsening osteoarthritis symptoms, and death. Per the
suit, there is no available antidote should a pet have an adverse
reaction to the long-acting drug, which was approved by the FDA in
2023 to treat osteoarthritis-related pain and is administered by
injection on a monthly basis.
The suit alleges misrepresentations about Librela by manufacturer
Zoetis, the world's largest animal health company by sales, have
caused "millions upon millions of dollars in damages for pet
owners," with the company to date continuing to maintain that the
drug is safe for dogs.
The plaintiff, a Florida resident, says that within days of the
first administration of Librela, her dog, Jake, a poodle mix
diagnosed with coxofemoral osteoarthritis, began to experience
drastically increased thirst, decreased appetite, limited mobility
and worsening pain. In May of this year, Jake had to be euthanized
as his condition had "become so dire and his quality of life so
poor that there was only one humane option," the lawsuit states.
"Plaintiff was harmed economically by the loss of her pet, and also
suffered extreme emotional stress and anguish from losing her
beloved Jake," the case relays. "Plaintiff did not receive the
product she intended to purchase: a pet medication that was fit for
its ordinary purpose -- to treat Jake's pain associated with
osteoarthritis in a safe and effective manner."
Osteoarthritis is a chronic joint disease characterized by a loss
of joint cartilage, thickening of the joint capsule, and new bone
formation around the joint, the lawsuit explains. The condition is
the most common form of arthritis in dogs, affecting roughly a
quarter of the canine population, and can impact how dogs move and
feel and their overall quality of life.
According to the cases, the Food and Drug Administration has
received more than 3,800 reports of side effects concerning Librela
through the end of last year. The European Database of Suspected
Adverse Drug Reaction Reports presently contains nearly 20,000
reports of adverse events linked to Librela, the majority of which
are classified as "systemic disorders," the suit adds.
The suit goes on to state that the FDA's Center of Veterinary
Medicine in November 2023 notified Zoetis that the Librela website
made false or misleading claims about the drug's efficacy.
Per the case, claims regarding the product's efficacy are based on
two company-sponsored studies whose methods have since been
questioned in a report published in the Veterinary Evidence
journal.
The Librela lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the United
States who bought Librela during the applicable statute of
limitations period and whose pet developed one or more of the
following symptoms within six months of the date of an
administration of Librela:
-- Lethargy;
-- Drooling;
-- Shaking;
-- Behavior changes;
-- Hiding;
-- Urinary incontinence;
-- Inappetence;
-- Increased or decreased thirst;
-- Ataxia;
-- Hind-end weakness;
-- Inability to walk;
-- New or worsening seizures;
-- Organ damage;
-- Worsening osteoarthritis symptoms;
-- Worsening pain; and
-- Death. [GN]
ZOETIS INC: Hartney Sues Over Mislabeled Dog Antibody Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY HARTNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZOETIS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09698 (D.N.Y., Oct. 9, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to adequately inform consumers about the
dangers of Librela and misled consumers by representing that
Librela is safe for use in dogs when it is not.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the misrepresentations
by Zoetis that Bedinvetmab, sold under the brand name Librela in
the United States and Europe -- a canine monoclonal antibody used
for the control of pain associated with osteoarthritis in dogs --
was safe and effective has resulted in millions upon millions of
dollars in damages for pet owners, including, but not limited to,
the costs of Librela, veterinary expenses related to the injuries
to dogs injured by Librela and in some cases death of the dog.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased Librela if the Defendant had
not represented that Librela was safe and effective for use in
dogs.
Zoetis Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and commercializes
animal health medicines and vaccines, with a focus on both
livestock and companion animals. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven D. Resnick, Esq.
Mary Elizabeth Putnick, Esq.
PARAFINCZUK WOLF
5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (954) 462-6700
Email: sresnick@parawolf.com
mputnick@parawolf.com
librelaservice@parawolf.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 ***