/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241023.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 23, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 213
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Acueducto Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mirano Class Suit Alleges
808 LEX: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition in Tenezaca
84 LUMBER: Class Cert. Discovery Due by Jan. 31, 2025
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Arkett Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Monroe Suit Transferred to D. Montana
ADVANCE STORES: Richardson Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AHS MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in McCool Suit Gets Initial Nod
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ridley Appeals Hernandez Suit Deal Approval
ASHEVILLE ARTHRITIS: Liable to Compromised Info, Wright Suit Claims
AT&T INC: Ghanaat Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AT&T INC: Hale Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AT&T INC: Pop Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AT&T INC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AT&T INC: Wallace Suit Transferred to D. Montana
AVIS RENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Tatiyaratana Says
BAMBUZA OC: Barcenas Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Modified to Nov. 8
BEST BUY: Lovig Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
BLACKLANE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Singh Alleges
BOTTE CUCINA: Pollitt Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
BOYS AND GIRLS: Watts Suit Seeks to Recover Proper OT Wages
BROAD RIVER: Honeycutt Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.S.C.
CARESTAR INC: Underpays Care Coordinators, Weldon Claims
CARGILL INC: Faces McDonald Suit Over Beef Price Conspiracy
CERENCE INC: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16
COMCAST CABLE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Says
COMPEX LEGAL: Maez Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
COMPEX LEGAL: Mullins Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
COMPEX LEGAL: Shahbaz Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Building Superintendents, Suit Says
CREDIT UNION: Wardrop Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
CRUTCHFIELD CORP: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
DAVE'S KILLER: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Swartz Suit
DEL MONTE: Class Cert Opposition in Vlacich Modified to Nov. 8
EDEN BRANDS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
ELAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ulbrich Claims
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Bennett Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave File Exhibits Under Seal
FORTIVE CORP: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Toepfer Says
FORZA X1: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Merger With Twin Vee
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Certification as Class Rep
GENWORTH LIFE: Settlement in Silverstein Gets Initial Nod
GERBER PRODUCTS: Parties in Conry Must Confer and Submit Proposals
GERBER PRODUCTS: Parties in P&L Must Submit Proposals
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Faces Myers Suit Over Compromised Info
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Smith Claims
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Parker Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Wood Sues Over Info's Access by Unknown Parties
HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Seeks OK of Notification to Class Members
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Lopp Loses Bid to Certify Class Action
HERMES OF PARIS: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HIGHLAND HEALTH: Wright Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
HOLLIS COBB ASSOCIATES: Morris Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
ICF TECH: Mondello Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Hunt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
IMPACT FULFILLMENT: Vasquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Team Physician Sues Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
INFORCE: Downtown LA Law Probes Ceither Bed Rails Product Recall
INSTANTALIGN INC: Caldwell Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
INTEREST MEDIA: Fridline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
JOHN WOOD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response Briefs
JOHNSON & WALES: Springer Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
KANSAS STAR: Perry Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
KASAMBA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employees Misclassification
KASAMBA INC: Simic Suit Removed to C.D. California
KERN COUNTY, CA: Bid to Modify Class Settlement Deal OK'd
LA BOOM INC: Gomez Sues Over Consistent Failure to Pay Wages
LENDINGTREE LLC: Macom Suit Transferred to D. Montana
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lanz Suit Due Dec. 16
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Overtime
MEPHISTO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Abramson Suit Says
NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
NATURAL ORGANICS: Theus Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplement
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Reichbart Suit Says
NETFLIX INC: Faces Abramson Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
NORTH CAROLINA: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Dates OK'd
OAK STREET: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 12
PATREON INC: Data Sharing Class Settlement Gets Court's Prelim. OK
PERDUE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Groundwater
PERRY RUSSELL: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid
PINNACLE TOO: Non-Exempt Employees Wins Class Status
PREMERA BLUE: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in L.B. Class Suit
PRIMMER & PIPER: Court Narrows Claims in Gaboriault
PROTEINSIMPLE: Carrillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: More Time to Mail Settlement Notice Sought
RAMON REYES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Robles Says
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack Appeals Amended Class Cert. Bid Denial
ROAD HAULAGE: Court of Appeal Allows UK Class Action to Continue
ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Seeks Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Wins Summary Judgment v. Sargent
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
SEYFARTH SHAW: Team Health Sues Over Breach of Duty, Negligence
SHEALA LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
SILVERLENS NY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Says
SIX FLAGS: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 28
SIX-GS AUTOMOTIVE: Ureche Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SKIN SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Leskovar Alleges
SNOWFLAKE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to D. Montana
SNOWFLAKE INC: Kirby Suit Transferred to D. Montana
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
SPIRE GLOBAL: Faces New Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Va.
STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Allowed Leave to File Sur-reply
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
TARGET CORP: Twal Balks at Mislabeled Simethicone Softgels
THOMSON REUTERS: Class Settlement in Brooks Gets Initial Nod
TICKETMASTER LLC: Yarbough Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials
TIMOTHY WARD: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Time Extension
TOM VILSACK: Chen Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Certification Discovery Due April 14, 2025
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Szymakowski Alleges Discriminatory Practices
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Must File Class Cert Responses in Lavin by Nov. 12
WAIAKEA BOTTLING: Ortega Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
WATSON CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thorpe Alleges
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Wirehouses' "Massive Revenue"
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Hearing in Klare Continued to Dec. 12
WORKFORCE 7: Class Cert. Discovery in Ballast Suit Due Dec. 9
*********
3M COMPANY: Acueducto Comunidad Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acueducto Comunidad De Buenos Aires, Inc., and other similarly
situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION
(f/k/a UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc.); CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.;
DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS,
INC. (f/k/a DowDupont); DYNAX CORPORATION; EIDP, INC. (f/k/a E.I.
DuPont de Nemours and Company); JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION (n/k/a RTX Corporation);
and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-49, Case No. 2:24-cv-05912-RMG (D.S.C.,
Oct. 16, 2024), is brought in its sovereign capacity against the
Defendants alleging theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence,
wantonness, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, and strict
liability for environmental and economic injuries, contamination
and unlawful incursion onto the Plaintiff's land, surface and
subsurface soil, sediment, natural resources, municipal and real
property caused by releases of fluorinated Class B firefighting
foams manufactured with synthetic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances or chemicals (collectively and hereafter referred to as
"PFAS").
In this complaint, the term ("PFAS") refers to a family of
synthetic man-made chemicals and surfactants including but not
limited to: Perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA"),
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS"), Perfluorohexanoic acid
("PFHxA"), Perfluoropentanoic acid ("PFPA"), Perfluoroheptanoic
acid ("PFHpA"), Pentafluorobenzoic acid ("PFBA"),
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ("PFBS"), Perfluorononanoic acid
("PFNA"), Perfluorodecacanoic acid ("PFDA") and Perfluorohexane
Sulfonic Acid ("PFHS"). In this complaint, the term Aqueous Film
Forming Foam ("AFFF") refers to any fluorinated firefighting foams
that contains PFOS and/or PFOA (including any of their salt, ionic
or acid forms and their precursors or degradation products)
manufactured, sold or distributed by the Defendants for civilian,
military and training applications worldwide.
AFFF is a specialized manufactured foam designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training exercises and
live-fire responses. PFOA and PFOS are extremely toxic, not easily
biodegradable, persistent in the environment and pose a significant
risk to animal and human health. Fire Departments have provided
fire protection and response in areas surrounding the Aqueduct,
including Caguas, for years. Fire departments have used AFFF
containing PFOS and PFOA in fire suppression and training
activities for many years.
During these activities, AFFF was used as directed by the
manufacturer, which allowed PFOS and PFOA to enter the environment.
When sprayed onto outdoor surfaces as intended, the compounds
migrated through the soil and into the groundwater, thereby
contaminating the water pumped into Plaintiff's water supply.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendant designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed,
released, trained users, produced instructional materials,
promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying
chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for
use in firefighting.
The Defendants failed to warn individuals, communities,
municipalities, or states of the serious environmental, human, and
animal toxicity concerns linked to the use and exposure to
fluorinated AFFF foams. Because the Defendants knowingly placed
defective and dangerously toxic fluorinated AFFF foams into the
stream of commerce they are strictly liable to the Plaintiff for
causing the release of toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and
its surface and subsurface soil. The Defendants sold, manufactured,
and distributed AFFF containing fluorinated surfactants touting the
superior firefighting performance for decades and deliberately
chose not to warn end users or purchasers of the potential
environmental or human toxicity concerns linked to fluorinated
compounds. Because the Defendants negligently caused the release of
toxic PFAS compounds into the Aqueduct and its surface and
subsurface soil they are all jointly and severally liable, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff, Acueducto Communidad de Buenos Aires, Inc., is a
private Puerto Rican community aqueduct.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF productio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Juan Saavedra-Castro, Esq.
Wilma E. Reveron Collazo, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
290 Ave. Jesus T. Pinero, Suite 1201
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918
Phone: (787) 474-0244
- and -
August J. Matteis, Jr., Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
3000 K Street, NW, Suite 275
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: (202) 499-7900
Facsimile: (202) 478-1795
- and -
Jim Hood, Esq.
Melissa R. Heidelberg, Esq.
WEISBROD MATTEIS & COPLEY PLLC
1022 Highland Colony Parkway, Ste 203
Ridgeland, MS 39157
Phone: (601) 803-5001
- and -
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Mirano Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON MIRANO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al. (RE:
AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION), Case No.
2:24-cv-05919-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 16, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
Each of the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting, says the suit.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to
proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains
and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique
chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of
exposed individuals.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory
and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by the
Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem
appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional,
malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions
of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of the
Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff Mirano regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed
to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United
States Navy. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal
absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and
proximately, caused the Plaintiff to develop the serious medical
conditions and complications, and to suffer severe personal
injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION;
BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS
CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20.
3M designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold PFAS,
and/or AFFF containing PFAS.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone (305) 375-0111
E-mail: james@ferrarolaw.com
808 LEX: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition in Tenezaca
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tenezaca et al., v. 808
Lex Restaurant, LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the
following amended briefing schedule:
-- Defendants' time to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification will be extended from Oct. 17 to Dec. 2.
-- Plaintiffs' time to file a reply in further support of their
motion will be extended from Oct. 24 to Dec. 9.
On September 30, 2024, we filed our notices of appearance to appear
on behalf of Defendants in this matter.
To date, we have been working with Plaintiffs' counsel to explore
ways to potentially resolve the matter. The parties have agreed to
mediate this matter on November 19 with a private mediator.
This is Defendants' first time requesting an extension to oppose
Plaintiffs' motion and Plaintiffs consent. The extension will not
affect any other dates and currently, the parties do not have any
scheduled appearances before the Court.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X40SsD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian Pete, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
77 Water Street, Suite 2100
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 232-1363
E-mail: Brian. Pete@lewisbrisbois.com
84 LUMBER: Class Cert. Discovery Due by Jan. 31, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGEL RUNCIMAN,
individually, on behalf of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund
Plan for Employees of 84 Lumber Company, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. 84 LUMBER COMPANY, ADMINISTRATIVE
COMMITTEE of the Amended and Restated Savings Fund Plan for
Employees of 84 Lumber Company, JOHN DOES 1-30 in their capacities
as members of the Administrative Committee, Case No.
2:24-cv-00852-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered
an order as follows:
-- The Parties shall complete the ADR process Dec. 9,
2024
With Mediator Mark Shepard, Esq. by:
-- The Parties shall move to amend the pleadings Jan. 31,
2025
or add new parties by:
-- Class certification discovery completed by: Jan. 31,
2025
84 Lumber is an operated American building materials supply
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v3zgYl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
Paige T. Noah, Esq.
WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
E-mail: ekilpela@waykayslay.com
pnoah@waykayslay.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW LLC
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sunshine R. Fellows, Esq.
Morgan M.J. Randle, Esq.
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP
5800 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15237
Telephone: (412) 748-1332
E-mail: Sunshine.Fellows@fmglaw.com
Morgan.Randle@fmglaw.com
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Arkett Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as James Arkett and Virginia Nickels, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS,
INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00486 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00156-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. -- https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/ --
is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. Headquartered
in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: 412-281-7229
Fax: 412-281-4229
Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com
arihn@peircelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Erin L Leffler, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L. L. P.
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 278-2555
Fax: (215) 278-2594
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS: Monroe Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Stefondra Monroe, Terry Lane Yates, and Wayne
Pina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., ADVANCE STORES COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
and SNOWFLAKE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-00508 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 16,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00158-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. -- https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/ --
is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. Headquartered
in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Joseph Evans Reed, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 801-5107
Email: joereed@quinnemanuel.com
ADVANCE STORES: Richardson Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Raven Richardson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., and SNOWFLAKE INC., Case
No. 5:24-cv-00488 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana on Oct. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00157-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. -- https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/ --
is an American automotive aftermarket parts provider. Headquartered
in Raleigh, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kelly Margolis Dagger, Esq.
Thomas Hamilton Segars, Esq.
ELLIS & WINTERS, LLP
P.O. Box 33550
Raleigh, NC 27636
Phone: (919) 573-1292
Fax: (919) 865-7010
Email: kelly.dagger@elliswinters.com
tom.segars@elliswinters.com
- and -
Joseph Evans Reed, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 801-5107
Email: joereed@quinnemanuel.com
AHS MANAGEMENT: Class Settlement in McCool Suit Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MCCOOL, SHAWN
MACDONALD, and WARREN HARLAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., and ARDENT HEALTH
SERVICES BENEFITS PLAN ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, Case No.
3:19-cv-01158 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
-- granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action
settlement,
-- maintaining class certification for settlement purposes,
-- approving form and manner of settlement notice,
-- preliminarily approving plan of allocation, and
-- scheduling a date for a final approval hearing.
AHS Management operates as an investment company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZXkQL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW, LLC
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
- and -
Nicholas Daniel Waite, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS D. WHITE, PLLC
219 2nd Ave. N., Suite 400
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (855) 566-3948
E-mail: waitelawoffices@gmail.com
ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Ridley Appeals Hernandez Suit Deal Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISETTE RIDLEY is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Itxamar Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arthur J. Gallagher
Service Co. Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-01910-H-DEB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.
The lawsuit, which 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, is brought
against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.
On Apr. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On June
7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On Feb. 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an order
granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement.
On Apr. 11, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
On July 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for an order
granting final approval of class action settlement.
On Aug. 26, 2024, the Court entered an Order certifying settlement
class; granting final approval of class action settlement; and
granting the Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and a
class representative incentive award. Judge Marilyn L. Huff signed
the Order.
The appellate case is captioned Hernandez, et al. v. Arthur J.
Gallagher Service Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 24-6075, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 4,
2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 9,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 15, 2024;
and
-- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 16,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ITXAMAR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, PC
1801 Century Park, E, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Objector-Appellant ALISETTE RIDLEY is represented by:
Henry Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC
1460 Westwood Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90024
ASHEVILLE ARTHRITIS: Liable to Compromised Info, Wright Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WANDA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASHEVILLE ARTHRITIS AND OSTEOPOROSIS CENTER,
P.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00257 (W.D.N.C., October 16,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and violation of North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach detected on or around May
22, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a
result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members
was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to
unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Asheville Arthritis and Osteoporosis Center, P.A. is a professional
association with its headquarters located in Asheville, North
Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fburne@ForThePeople.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Ken Grunfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
grunfeld@kolawyers.com
AT&T INC: Ghanaat Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Star Ghanaat, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AT&T, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-05065 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana on Oct. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00150-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:
Christopher L. Springer, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
801 Garden Street, Suite 301
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 456-1496
Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
Email: cspringer@kellerrohfback.com
- and -
Benjamin Gould, Esq.
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
Email: bgould@kellerrohrback.com
claufenberg@kellerrohfback.com
- and -
Matthew S. Melamed, Esq.
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 463-3900
Facsimile: (510) 463-3901
Email: mmelamed@kellerrohfback.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kyle Thomas Cutts, Esq.
BAKERHOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-7816
Email: kcutts@bakerlaw.com
AT&T INC: Hale Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------
The case styled as Debbie Hale and Nick Margeas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-01943 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. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00161-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property 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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Ave # 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Phone: (214) 521-3605
Fax: (214) 523-6600
Email: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (630) 273-2625
Fax: (312) 264-0100
Email: beth@feganscott.com
megan@feganscott.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Dr., Ste. 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.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
AT&T INC: Pop Suit Transferred to D. Montana
--------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alin Pop, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. AT&T INC., SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02008 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. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00163-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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW PC
586 Duane Street, Suite 102
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
Phone: (630) 677-6745
Email: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com
- and -
Enica Bogdan, Esq.
KEITH GIBSON LAW PC
1200 N Federal Highway, Suite 375
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (305) 306-4989
The Defendants are represented by:
Asher Griffin, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 2010
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (737) 667-6100
Email: ashergriffin@quinnemanuel.com
AT&T INC: Smith Suit Transferred to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Alisa Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02087 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. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00164-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other 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:
Barry C. Barnett, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 653-1903
Fax: (713) 654-6666
Email: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 789-3100
Fax: (310) 789-3150
Email: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.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
AT&T INC: Wallace Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cindy Wallace, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02330 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. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00165-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AT&T Inc. -- https://www.att.com/ -- is an American multinational
telecommunications holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
LANIER LAW FIRM
10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77064
Phone: (713) 659-5200
Fax: (713) 659-2204
Email: mark.lanier@lanierlawfirm.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO PC
5 Becker Farm Road, 2nd Floor
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (212) 223-6444
Email: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com
- and -
Rebecca L. Solomon, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 682-5600
Email: rsolomon@tousley.com
- and -
Sean S. Modjarrad, Esq.
MODJARRAD ABUSAAD & SAID
212 W Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone: (972) 789-1664
Fax: (972) 789-1665
Email: smodjarrad@mas.law
- and -
Shauna Itri, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
325 Chestnut Street, Suite 917
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 553-7981
Email: sitri@seegerweiss.com
AVIS RENT: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Tatiyaratana Says
------------------------------------------------------------
TANISORN TATIYARATANA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, and
AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09647
(D.N.J., October 7, 2024) is a class action against Avis on behalf
of citizens of all states in the United States for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated Avis customers' personally identifiable information from
third party criminal hackers in August 2024.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses, including, but not limited to, a
diminution in the value of their private information, the loss of
the benefit of their contractual bargain with Defendant,
out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time reasonably
incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the data breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, against Defendant seeking
redress for its unlawful conduct asserting claims for negligence,
negligence per se, invasion of privacy by intrusion, and unjust
enrichment.
Avis Rent A Car System, LLC operates one of the American car rental
brands, with thousands of locations within and outside of the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: jpollack@4-justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
- and -
Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 331-5254
Facsimile: (713) 513-5202
E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
BAMBUZA OC: Barcenas Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RAMIRO LOBATO BARCENAS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BAMBUZA OC VENTURES LLC, a California limited liability company;
BAMBUZA SMF VENTURES LLC, a California limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
30-2024-01415928-CU-OE-CXC (Filed July 30, 2024), was removed from
the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 16, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:24-cv-02234 to the proceeding.
The suit asserts the following causes of action: failure to pay
minimum and straight time wages; failure to pay overtime wages;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to indemnify employees for expenditures; and unfair
business practices.
According to the Complaint, the putative class is:
"[a]ll persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an
hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the
period beginning four years and 178 days before the filing of
the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to
the Class is sent."
Bambuza offers coffees, teas, and more.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Eugene Ryu, Esq.
Zain Zubair, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-5000
Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
E-mail: Gene.Ryu@klgates.com
Zain.Zubair@klgates.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Modified to Nov. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers entered
a modified scheduling order as to class certification briefing as
follows:
Event Previous Date New Date
Motion for class certification and Oct. 15, 2024 Nov. 8,
2024
service of supporting expert
Opposition to class certification Jan. 27, 2025 Feb. 18,
2025
and service of supporting expert
reports
Reply in support of class March 20, 2025 April 8,
2025
certification motion and service
of rebuttal expert reports
Hearing on motion for class To be set by April 29,
2025
certification the Court
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uDcOdE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
Shana Khader, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Cort Carlson, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
gchappell@tzlegal.com
skhader@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ccarlson@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq.
Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
E-mail: emckeen@omm.com
apavel@omm.com
BEST BUY: Lovig Appeals Summary Judgment in Labor Suit to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIKOLA LOVIG is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Nikola Lovig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Stores L.P., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-cv-02807-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for the following causes of action:
(1) failure to provide meal periods, (2) failure to provide rest
periods, (3) failure to pay hourly wages, (4) failure to provide
accurate written wage statements, (5) failure to timely pay all
final wages, and (6) unfair compensation. On July 10, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding a seventh cause of
action under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
On June 27, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton on Sept. 4, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Lovig v. Best Buy Stores L.P., et
al., Case No. 24-6046, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 4, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 9,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on October 16,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on November 15, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on December 26, 2024;
and
-- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on January 24, 2025.
[BN]
BLACKLANE NORTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Singh Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
HARJEET SINGH; and JASBIR SINGH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLACKLANE NORTH AMERICA
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-07129 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2024)
is an action against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum
wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest
periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary
business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as drivers.
Blacklane North America Inc. is a transportation company that
provides limousine services across the United States, including in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Jeremy Abay, Esq.
Matthew Carrieri, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
BOTTE CUCINA: Pollitt Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOTTE CUCINA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07259 (E.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.botterestaurants.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics,
the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Botte Cucina, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
BOYS AND GIRLS: Watts Suit Seeks to Recover Proper OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
ERIC LEON WATTS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF NORTHERN
NECK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-713 (E.D. Va., October 9,
2024) seeks relief for claims for unpaid overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act
arising from work that Plaintiff individually, and others similarly
situated performed for the benefit and at the direction of the
Defendant.
Plaintiff Watts is a resident of Virginia and, until August 2,
2024, was employed as BGCNN's Athletic Director and as a Marketing
Assistant the R&D Marketing Team from November 2023 to August 2,
2024, both positions compensated on an hourly basis. He asserts
that although he and the putative class/collective members worked
more than 40 hours for Defendant in one or more weeks, they
received a flat hourly rate for all hours worked, and not, overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA and VOWA.
Boys and Girls Club Of Northern Neck, Inc. is a non-profit youth
organization with its principal office located in Kilmarnock,
Lancaster County, Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
BROAD RIVER: Honeycutt Class Suit Removed from State Ct. to D.S.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as BETTINA HONEYCUTT, FRANCISCO
GILMORE, and JENNIFER COLBURN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BROAD RIVER PHYSICIANS GROUP, LLC and
MEDLYTIX, LLC, Case No. 2024-CP-10-04598 (Filed Sept. 13, 2024) was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Charleston County, South
Carolina, to the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina on Oct. 16, 2024.
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-05922-BHH to the proceeding.
The suit alleges breach of contract (as against Broad River);
tortious interference with a Contractual Relationship (as against
Medlytix); negligence (as against both Defendants); unjust
enrichment (as against both Defendants); declaratory judgment (as
against Broad River); injunctive relief (as against both
Defendants); and violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act (as against Medlytix).
Broad River is a medical group in Columbia, SC.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
MCGOWAN, HOOD, FELDER &
PHILLIPS, LLC
10 Shem Drive, Suite 300
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 388-7202
E-mail: jward@mcgowanhood.com
- and -
Mark Bringardner, Esq.
BRINGARDNER INJURY LAW FIRM
41 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 380-5299
E-mail: mark@bringardner.com
- and -
Gibson Solomons, III, Esq.
SPEIGHTS & SOLOMONS, LLC
100 Oak Street, East
Hampton, SC 29924
Telephone: (803) 943-4444
E-mail: gsolomons@speightsandsolomons.com
The Defendants are represented by:
J. Walker Coleman IV, Esq.
Jennifer H. Thiem, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
134 Meeting Street Ste 5000
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 579-5627
E-mail: walker.coleman@klgates.com
jennifer.thiem@klgates.com
- and -
Brandt R. Horton, Esq.
J CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP
25 Calhoun Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 724-6620
E-mail: BHorton@ycrlaw.com
CARESTAR INC: Underpays Care Coordinators, Weldon Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
BRACIE WELDON, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated. Plaintiff v. CARESTAR, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00563-JPH (S.D. Ohio, October 8, 2024) is a collective
action and class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, to recover compensation
from Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Ohio Constitution and Ohio Rev. Code.
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff routinely worked 56 hours per
week but was not paid overtime for the work she performed. The
Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff to work more than 40
hours in a week without timely paying her the legally mandated
overtime premium.
The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in August 28,
2021 as a care coordinator, and was paid a base salary of $51,000
per year.
CareStar, Inc. operates as a case management provider in multiple
states, including Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia, Pennsylvania and
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 943-6650
Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com
CARGILL INC: Faces McDonald Suit Over Beef Price Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION v. CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
CORPORATION (a/k/a CARGILL PROTEIN), JBS S.A., JBS USA FOOD
COMPANY, SWIFT BEEF COMPANY, JBS PACKERLAND, INC., NATIONAL BEEF
PACKING COMPANY, TYSON FOODS, INC. and TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.,
Case No. 0:24-cv-03937-JRT-JFD (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 16, 2024) is a class
action alleging that the Defendants and their co-conspirators
engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of
trade or commerce in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act.
According to the complaint, the goal of their conspiracy was to
fix, raise, stabilize and/or maintain the price of beef sold to the
Plaintiff and others at supra-competitive levels – that is,
prices artificially higher than beef prices would have been in the
absence of their conspiracy. The Defendants' conspiracy was
effective and achieved that goal. Ascertaining the full scope and
measure of the conspiracy will require discovery. However, as
alleged in this Complaint, Defendants and their co-conspirators
implemented their conspiracy through one or more anticompetitive
means. For example, and without limitation, they implemented their
conspiracy by coordinating, manipulating, or agreeing to pay less
than competitive prices for the main or primary input in producing
beef, namely, slaughter-ready cattle (i.e., fed cattle), for the
purpose and with the effect of fixing, increasing, stabilizing or
maintaining above competitive levels their margins on, and the
price of beef sold to, Plaintiff and others. Additionally, or in
the alternative, as a further example, Defendants and their
co-conspirators implemented their conspiracy by collusively
reducing the slaughter-ready cattle and beef supply, which over
time artificially elevated the price of beef that they sold to
Plaintiff and others, the suit alleges.
The Defendants colluded during the Conspiracy Period to reduce
supplies of beef in tandem, thereby raising and fixing beef prices
at levels higher than prices that would have prevailed had the beef
market been competitive. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered
antitrust injury by paying illegally inflated prices for beef it
purchased from Defendants, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff, through its assignors, purchased beef in the United
States directly from one or more of the Defendants and
co-conspirators, from at least Jan. 1, 2015, until the present.
3. Defendants are the world’s largest meat processing and packing
companies, known in the industry as meatpackers or packers.
Cargill is a meat processing and packing company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Iovieno, Esq.
Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr., Esq.
Lawrence S. Brandman, Esq.
Jack G. Stern, Esq.
Mark A. Singer, Esq.
Justin V. Arborn, Esq.
Elizabeth R. Moore, Esq.
CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 504-6000
Facsimile: (212) 504-6666
E-mail: philip.iovieno@cwt.com
nicholas.gravante@cwt.com
lawrence.brandman@cwt.com
jack.stern@cwt.com
mark.singer@cwt.com
justin.arborn@cwt.com
elizabeth.moore@cwt.com
CERENCE INC: $30MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF MIAMI FIRE FIGHTERS' AND POLICE
OFFICERS' RETIREMENT TRUST,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
CERENCE INC., SANJAY DHAWAN, and
MARK J. GALLENBERGER, Defendants.
Case No. 1:22-cv-10321-ADB
Hon. Allison D. Burroughs
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING;
AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of Cerence Inc. ("Cerence") during the period from
November 16, 2020 through February 4, 2022, inclusive, and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):1
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") is pending in the
Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff has reached a proposed
settlement of the Litigation for $30,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement") on behalf of the Settlement Class, that, if approved,
will resolve all claims in the Litigation.
A hearing will be held on December 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern
Time, before the Honorable Allison D. Burroughs either in person at
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
in Courtroom 17 of the John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1
Courthouse Way, Suite 2300, Boston, MA 02210, or by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court) for the following
purposes: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be
finally approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether a Judgment
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit B to the Stipulation
should be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice against
Defendants; (c) to determine whether the Settlement Class should be
certified for purposes of the Settlement; (d) to determine whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement
is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (e) to determine
whether the motion by Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses should be approved; and (f) to consider any
other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Litigation and the Settlement, and you may
be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Cerence
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173038,
Milwaukee, WI 53217, 1-877-411-4801. Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the
Claims Administrator, www.CerenceSecuritiesLitigation.com
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online, no
later than January 30, 2025, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Settlement Class Member
and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but
you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or
orders entered by the Court in connection with the Settlement.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than November 25, 2024,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Litigation and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than November 25, 2024, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cerence, the
other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN LLP
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, NY 10606
(914) 437-8551
jsaltzman@saxenawhite.com
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Cerence Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173038
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-877-411-4801
www.CerenceSecuritiesLitigation.com
By Order of the Court
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").
COMCAST CABLE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thomas Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MONICA THOMAS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC; and
COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05403 (E.D. Pa.,
October 8, 2024) is a class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated customers' sensitive personally identifiable
information, including their names, Social Security numbers, dates
of birth, and account information.
On or about April 26, 2024, FBCS announced that certain systems in
its network had been subject to unauthorized access between
February 14 and February 26, 2024, and the unauthorized actor had
the ability to view or acquire certain information on the FBCS
network during the period of access.
On or about August 16, 2024, Comcast began sending out notice
letters to its customers, stating that Comcast learned of the data
breach at FBCS on March 13, 2024, but that FBCS did not notify
Comcast that its customer data had been impacted until July 17,
2024.
The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to adequately protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII -- and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect
their customers' sensitive data.
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 personal data was compromised and
stolen as a result of the data breach and who remain at risk due to
Defendants' inadequate data security practices.
Comcast Cable Communications, formerly known as American Cable
Systems and then Comcast Holdings, is a multinational
telecommunications and media conglomerate incorporated and
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[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
- and -
Jonathan S. Mann, Esq.
PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C.
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 322-8880
E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com
COMPEX LEGAL: Maez Class Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE MAEZ, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMPEX LEGAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 24STCV23563 (Filed Sept. 12, 2024), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District Of California on Oct. 16, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08941 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that the Defendant unlawfully breached its duties
to the Plaintiff and the Class by failing to implement industry
protocols and exercise reasonable care in protecting and
safeguarding the Private Information of the Plaintiff and the Class
during the time the PII was within Defendant's possession or
control.
The Plaintiff purports to represent a class of:
"all individuals whose Private Information was compromised in
the data breach first detected by Defendant on or about April
17, 2024."
Compex is a medical record retrieval and document management
service.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jerome Doctors, Esq.
Max E. Kaplan, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-7942
Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
E-mail: JDoctors@cozen.com
MKaplan@cozen.com
COMPEX LEGAL: Mullins Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH MULLINS, on behalf of
himself individually and all others similarly situated v. COMPEX
LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 24STCV25432 (Filed Oct. 1, 2024),
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 16, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08939 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act.
The Plaintiff purports to represent a class of:
"all persons whose Private Information was compromised
because of the Incident."
Compex is a medical record retrieval and document management
service.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jerome Doctors, Esq.
Max E. Kaplan, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-7942
Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
E-mail: JDoctors@cozen.com
MKaplan@cozen.com
COMPEX LEGAL: Shahbaz Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as RABIA SHAHBAZ, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COMPEX LEGAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 24STCV23351 (Filed Sept. 10, 2024), was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 16, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08937 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that Compex failed to properly secure and
safeguard Representative Plaintiff's and/or Class Members'
protected health information and personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network.
The Plaintiff represents a class of:
"all individuals within the State of California who were
notified by the Defendant on Aug. 30, 2024 that their Private
Information was accessed by unauthorized third parties as a
result of the Incident."
Compex is a medical record retrieval and document management
service.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jerome Doctors, Esq.
Max E. Kaplan, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 892-7942
Facsimile: (213) 892-7999
E-mail: JDoctors@cozen.com
MKaplan@cozen.com
CREATIVE INDUSTRIES: Underpays Building Superintendents, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LENNOX MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREATIVE INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, MERRIMAKER
CORPORATION, RUDD REALTY MANAGEMENT CORP., JOSHUA GREENBERG, and
THE ESTATE OF FREDERICK J. RUDD, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07862
(S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure
to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay timely wages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a building superintendent at the
Defendants' buildings in New York, New York from approximately
December 2006 until on or about September 25, 2024.
Creative Industries Corporation is a company that owns and operates
residential apartment buildings in New York, New York.
Merrimaker Corporation is a company that owns and operates
residential apartment buildings in New York, New York.
Rudd Realty Management Corp. is a company that owns and operates
residential apartment buildings in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence F. Morrison, Esq.
Joshua S. Androphy, Esq.
MORRISON TENENBAUM, PLLC
87 Walker St., Floor 2
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 620-0938
Email: jandrophy@m-t-law.com
CREDIT UNION: Wardrop Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WARDROP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT UNION ONE and DOXIM, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01083 (W.D. Mich., October 16, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence
per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Doxim's
network and computers systems following a data breach discovered on
or around December 30, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely
notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the
data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff
and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Credit Union ONE is a state-chartered credit union with its
principal place of business in Ferndale, Michigan.
Doxim, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Ontario, Canada.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Sweetnam, Esq.
Laura Edmondson, Esq.
JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 200
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 777-7777
Email: bill@yourattorney.com
laura@yourattorney.com
CRUTCHFIELD CORP: Frost Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Crutchfield Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03863 (D. Minn., October 8, 2024)
arises because Defendant's website, www.crutchfield.com, is not
fully and equally accessible to Plaintiffs and other 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 and its implementing regulations, as well as the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
As a consequence of Plaintiffs' experience visiting Defendant's
website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on their behalf, the Plaintiffs found Defendant's website
has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
them full and equal access to important website content -- content
Defendant makes available to its sighted website users.
The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in
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; and damages, and a
damage multiplier pursuant to the state law.
Crutchfield Corporation retails consumer electronics. The Company
offers audio and video equipment for the automobiles, as well as
computers, televisions, and other electronics. Crutchfield serves
customers in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndselaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
DAVE'S KILLER: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Swartz Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVE'S KILLER BREAD, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion to dismiss and instead granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
David Swartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dave's Killer Bread, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-10053-YGR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") and California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL") by including unlawful labels on their bread products.
On Nov. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On Feb. 12, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint for lack of standing and a
motion to strike the declaration of Colin B. Weir.
On Feb. 23, 2024, Loraine McWhorter, Pablo Ondar, Akeem Pina filed
a motion to intervene.
On Sept. 20, 2024, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of standing and their motion to strike the
declaration of Colin B. Weir. Further, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denied as moot the
proposed intervenors' motion to intervene.
The appellate case is captioned Dave's Killer Bread, Inc., et al.,
Petitioners, v. David Swartz, Respondent, Case No. 24-6074, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
October 4, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID SWARTZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley Reynolds, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali Backer, Esq.
Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Email: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
rajiv@gutridesafier.com
- and -
Matthew T. McClralry, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
4450 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 100
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (214) 502-2171
Email: matt@gutlridesafier.com
- and -
Patrick J. Branson, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (563) 581-8944
Email: patrick@gutridesafier.com
Defendants-Petitioners DAVE'S KILLER BREAD, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Amy R. Upshaw, Esq.
Rebecca Paradis, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20006
- and -
Quyen L. Ta, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
- and -
Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
Kelly Perigoe, Esq.
Michael L. Resch, Esq.
Samuel R. Diamant, Esq.
Hannah Nguyen, Esq.
KING & SPALDING LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 318-1200
Email: lkiser@kslaw.com
DEL MONTE: Class Cert Opposition in Vlacich Modified to Nov. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER VLACICH, BRENDA
ROBERT, ELENA NACARINO, ANA KRISTIC, CHRISTINA VINK, LORA GRODNICK,
LISA MALARA, AND TEENA STAMBAUGH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. DEL MONTE FOODS, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order modifying the case schedule as follows:
Event Current Revised
Deadline Deadline
Class certification opposition and Oct. 30, 2024 Nov. 8,
2024
Defendants' class certification
expert disclosures due
Class certification expert Nov. 21, 2024 Nov. 29,
2024
discovery cut-off
Class certification reply due Dec. 5, 2024 Dec. 17,
2024
Hearing on Motion for Class Jan. 9, 2025 No Change
Certification and Appointment of
Class Representatives and Class
Counsel
On March 12, 2024, this Court entered an Order setting the schedule
for Class Certification.
On Aug. 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification.
On Sept. 11, 2024, Defendant served Notices of Deposition of
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Experts, and
offered to confer with Plaintiffs regarding alternative dates if
any of the noticed dates were unavailable.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=scFtu4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Rick Lyon, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
rick@dovel.com
- and -
Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
1500 Rosecrans Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 575-2550
Facsimile: (310) 464-3550
E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Erik K. Swanholt, Esq.
John J. Atallah, Esq.
Kelsey C. Boehm, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
Telephone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
E-mail: eswanholt@foley.com
jatallah@foley.com
kboehm@foley.com
EDEN BRANDS: Hedges Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EDEN BRANDS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://ever-eden.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
September 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase skincare for face
from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
person. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able
to add the items to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Eden Brands Inc. operates the Evereden online retail store, as well
as the Evereden interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (NYSE: EW) securities
between February 6, 2024 and July 24, 2024. 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.
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
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (EW) Misled Investors Regarding
the Growth of its Core Product
According to the complaint, during the class period, Defendants
provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors related to
the growth of the Company's core product, Transcatheter Aortic
Valve Replacement ("TAVR"), 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. Notably, the Company’s claims and confidence relied far
too heavily on their perceived ability to engage the claimed
low-treatment-rate population of patients and an overestimation of
the desire for hospitals and other care facilities to continue to
utilize and otherwise commit resources to the TAVR procedures over
newer, innovative treatment alternatives.
Plaintiff alleges that on July 24, 2024, Edwards unveiled
below-expectation financial results for the second quarter of
fiscal 2024 and slashed its revenue guidance for the TAVR platform
for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed the TAVR
setback on the "continued growth and expansion of structural heart
therapies . . . [which] put pressure on hospital workflows."
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. On this
news, the price of Edwards’ common stock declined dramatically,
from $86.95 per share on July 24, 2024, to $59.70 per share on July
25, 2024, a decline of about 31.34%.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application
to the court by December 13, 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 Edwards Lifesciences
Corporation 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]
ELAN FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Ulbrich Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ULBRICH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-05419 (E.D. Pa., October 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' sensitive
personally identifiable information, including their names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, and account information.
Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. received
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII from its clients, which is used
to collect debts on behalf of its clients. One of FBCS' clients is
Elan Financial Services.
On or about April 26, 2024, FBCS announced that certain systems in
its network had been subject to unauthorized access between
February 14 and February 26, 2024, and the unauthorized actor had
the ability to view or acquire certain information on the FBCS
network during the period of access.
The complaint alleges that Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to ensure that FBCS had adequate
and reasonable safeguards and measures in place to protect the PII
of Plaintiff and Class Members after that information was
transferred and entrusted to FBCS in order to enable FBCS to
collect the debt owed by Plaintiff and Class Members to Defendant.
Elan Financial Services partners with more than 1,300 financial
institutions to provide outsourced credit card solutions.[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
EVOLVE BANK & TRUST: Bennett Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carl Bennett, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank & Trust, Case No.
4:24-cv-00635 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee on Oct. 17, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02783-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a
best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization
and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh Skye Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (713) 554-0092
Email: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Martha Tucker Ayres, Esq.
TABLE LAW PLLC
10201 West Markham, Suite 311
Little Rock, AR 72205
Phone: (501) 491-0300
Email: martha@tablelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Amisha R. Patel, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: (202) 339-8457
Email: apatel@orrick.com
- and -
Aravind Swaminathan, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
401 Union Street, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 839-4300
Email: aswaminathan@orrick.com
- and -
Daniel W. Van Horn, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
Crescent Center
6075 Poplar Avenue, 5th Floor
Memphis, TN 38119
Phone: (901) 680-7331
Fax: (901) 680-7201
Email: danny.vanhorn@butlersnow.com
- and -
Andrew B. Schrack, Esq.
BUTLER SNOW LLP
6075 Poplar Ave., Suite 500
Memphis, TN 38119
Phone: (901) 680-7353
Email: andrew.schrack@butlersnow.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Seeks Leave File Exhibits Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA PENA, Successor in
Interest to JOSE PENA, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting her application for leave
to file under seal exhibits 1, 5, 6, 9, 17, and 18 filed in support
of Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff also seeks leave to file under seal the Motion and
Amended Reply briefs in support of class certification with revised
proposed redactions based upon Defendant's representations
regarding the portions of those briefs that it maintains should be
sealed.
Finally, at Defendant's request, the Plaintiff seeks through this
Application to file under seal portions of the Hendricks Opposition
--including Exhibits 1 and 2 (excerpts of Evan Hendricks' and
Kimberly Cave's deposition transcripts, respectively) -- with
revised proposed redactions based upon Defendant's representations
regarding the portions of the brief that Defendant maintains should
be sealed.
The Plaintiff originally sought to seal the material addressed
herein because Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
designated certain information, identified in the Declarations of
John Soumilas and the attachments thereto as "confidential" or
"highly confidential" pursuant to the protective order in place in
this matter.
In its September 23 and October 1, 2024 Orders (ECFs 129 and 130),
the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s prior
requests to seal certain materials. The Parties renewed their meet
and confer efforts regarding the sealed filings of materials
addressed in the September 23 and October 1, 2024 Orders.
The Defendant provided revised confidentiality designations with
respect to Exhibit 1, 5, 9, and 18 filed in connection with the
Motion, as well as to the Motion and the Amended Reply.
The Defendant withdrew its confidentiality designation with respect
to Exhibit 4 to the Motion. Defendant indicated that it maintains
its confidentiality designations with respect to Exhibits 6 and 17
to the Motion.
Experian operates as an information services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yB3fok at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erika Angelos Heath, Esq.
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
369 Pine Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (628) 246-1352
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: eheath@consumerlawfirm.com
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel Zemel, Esq.
ZEMEL LAW, LLC
660 Broadway
Paterson, NJ 07514
Telephone: (862) 227-3106
Facsimile: (973) 282-8603
E-mail: nl@zemellawllc.com
- and -
Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744-1146
Facsimile: (323) 967-7775
E-mail: stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com
FORTIVE CORP: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Toepfer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
SETH TOEPFER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FORTIVE CORPORATION and ACCRUENT LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-01694 (W.D. Wash., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges that Accruent,
and its parent company, Fortive, lost control over their computer
network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on
their computer network in a data breach perpetrated by multiple
cybercriminals.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach occurred between Jan.
25, 2023, and Nov. 6, 2023-an appalling eleven months long.
Following an internal investigation in or around Nov. 2023, the
Defendants learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to
employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including
name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license
information, passport number, birth certificate number, financial
information, and health insurance information. The Data Breach has
impacted at least 31, 478 thousand current and former employees,
the suit says.
On Oct. 3, 2024 -- a year and a half after the Data Breach first
occurred -- the Defendants finally began notifying Class Members
about the Data Breach. The Defendants' failure to timely report the
Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without
any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports
to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. The Plaintiff and
the Class are victims of Defendants' negligence and inadequate
cyber security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of
the proposed Class trusted Defendants with their PII. But the
Defendants betrayed that trust. The Defendants failed to properly
use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach, the
suit asserts.
As a result of Defendants' failure to prevent the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees have suffered and will
continue to suffer damages, including monetary losses, lost time,
anxiety, and emotional distress, added the suit.
Fortive Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and services
professional and engineered products, software, and services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
FORZA X1: Monteverde Investigates Proposed Merger With Twin Vee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City is
investigating:
-- Forza X1, Inc. (Nasdaq: FRZA), relating to its proposed merger
with Twin Vee Powercats Co. Under the terms of the agreement, Forza
shareholders are expected to receive 0.611666275 shares of Twin Vee
per share of Forza they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 13, 2024.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/forza-x1-inc/. It is free and there
is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Twin Vee Powercats Co. (Nasdaq: VEEE), relating to its
proposed merger with Forza X1, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Forza shareholders are expected to receive 0.611666275
shares of Twin Vee per share of Forza they own.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for
November 13, 2024.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/twin-vee-powercats-co/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Certification as Class Rep
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nichole Lutz, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Froedtert Health
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00974-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order certifying herself as the class
representative, and The Previant Law Firm S.C. as class counsel,
for the following two subclasses Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All hourly non-exempt employees employed by Froedtert who, for
the time period after of Nov. 7, 2021 to the present either (a)
during any workweek received overtime pay at a rate lower than
time and a half the regular rate earned for the week; or (b)
during any workweek received pay for working on holidays that
was
computed at an hourly rate lower than time and a half the
regular
rate earned for the week.
Froedtert is a health system that provides cost-effective health
care to residents in Wisconsin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cfu3Ga at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yingtao Ho, Esq.
THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Telephone: (414) 271-4500
Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
E-mail: yh@previant.com
GENWORTH LIFE: Settlement in Silverstein Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN SILVERSTEIN,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, V. GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE CO., Case No.
3:23-cv-00684-DJN (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an
order preliminarily approving class action settlement and
scheduling final approval hearing.
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3), and for purposes of settlement only, the Action is
preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the
following Settlement Class:
"All owners of Gold and Gold II universal life insurance
policies
issued, insured, or assumed by Genworth Life Insurance Company,
or
its predecessors or successors, whose CGI Rate Scales were
changed
as a result of the 2019 COI Rate Adjustment."
The "2019 COI Rate Adjustment," for purposes of this settlement,
means the change in COI Rate Scales applicable to the Policies,
announced in 2019 and effective beginning Dec. 1,2019, in which new
COI Rate tables were adopted for the Policies. Identification of
Defendant's customers to be included in the Class List shall be
governed by the protocols provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court finds and concludes pursuant to Rule 23, and for purposes
of settlement only, that Plaintiff Martin Silverstein is an
adequate class representative and certifies him as Class
Representative on behalf of the Settlement Class.
The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the
Agreement, as being fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best
interest of the named plaintiff and the Settlement Class, subject
to further consideration at the Final Approval Mearing.
Class Counsel intends to seek an award of attorneys' fees not to
exceed 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and reimbursement of
reasonable costs. The Agreement also proposes a service award to
Plaintiff of up to $25,000. The Court will defer ruling on these
requests until the Final Approval Hearing.
The Settlement Fund means the up to $5.1 million common cash fund
for the benefit of the Settlement Class that Genworth is obligated
to pay under the Settlement should the Court grant Final Approval.
Genworth provides life insurance, long-term care insurance,
mortgage insurance, and annuities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AUrLyQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Parties in Conry Must Confer and Submit Proposals
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Conry, et al v. Gerber
Products Company, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06784 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Sept. 24, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order
directing the parties to meet and confer and submit proposals to
the court for any other anticipated substantive motions, including
a motion for class certification, in the Conry case.
The suit alleges violation of the Clayton Act.
Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[CC]
GERBER PRODUCTS: Parties in P&L Must Submit Proposals
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as P & L Development, LLC v.
Gerber Products Company, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05382 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Sept. 28, 2021), the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an order
directing the parties to meet and confer and submit proposals to
the court for any other anticipated substantive motions, including
a motion for class certification, in the Conry case.
The suit states antitrust litigation.
Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products
headquartered in Florham Park, New Jersey.[CC]
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Faces Myers Suit Over Compromised Info
----------------------------------------------------------
CORY MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03955 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its network systems following a
data breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider,
with its headquarters in Texas. [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
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Smith Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03968 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon
seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its network systems following a
data breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider,
with its headquarters in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
T. J. Jesky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY
205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 894-0130
Facsimile: (312) 489-8216
Email: tj@jeskylaw.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
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Parker Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERICKA PARKER, as Next Friend of L.P., a minor, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON
HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03963 (S.D. Tex.,
October 16, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, invasion of privacy,
unjust enrichment/quasi contract, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and
protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals stored within its network systems following a
data breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider,
with its headquarters in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Wood Sues Over Info's Access by Unknown Parties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY WOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-03946 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach
of third-party beneficiary contract.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach discovered on or around August 13, 2024. The Defendant also
failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties.
Gryphon Healthcare, LLC is a medical-billing services provider,
with its headquarters in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
- and -
A. Brooke Murphy, Esq.
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
HAND HOSPITALITY: Son Seeks OK of Notification to Class Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SOONJA SON, MI AE KANG,
and IN HYEONG SUR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. HAND HOSPITALITY LLC, CHO DANG GOL LLC, TOLEDO 53
INC., YEONKHEE KIM, CHANHONG MIN, and KIHYUN LEE, Case No.
1:22-cv-04639-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order permitting Court supervised notification to members of the
putative class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.
HAND is a hospitality agency that produces and manages restaurant
brands.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ArK5s0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marena Smith, Esq.
VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
40 Broad, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 943-9080
E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Howard Zane Myerowitz, Esq.
Joshua S. Lee, Esq.
SONG LAW FIRM, LLC
400 Kelby Street, 19th Floor
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (201) 461-0031
E-mail: hmyerowitz@songlawfirm.com
jlee@songlawfirm.com
HEIDI WASHINGTON: Lopp Loses Bid to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA LOPP v. HEIDI
WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01135-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Sally Berens entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motions to certify class action and for appointment of counsel.
Even if Plaintiff can establish the first three requirements for
maintenance of a class action set forth in Rule 23(a)(1)–(3), his
request is properly rejected on the last requirement, fair and
adequate representation by the representative party.
Because the Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court
finds that the Plaintiff is not an appropriate representative of a
class.
While the Plaintiff asserts that his litigation experience and
paralegal certification may assist the class in prosecuting this
action, the Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that he has
prior experience serving as a class representative or that he has
handled any sort of class action through his paralegal experience.
Thus, he is not an appropriate class representative.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3ccPVG at no extra
charge.[CC]
HERMES OF PARIS: Lewis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hermes of Paris,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Justin Lewis, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Hermes of Paris, Inc.,
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC24618955 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Francisco Cty., Oct. 15, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Hermes of Paris, Inc. -- https://www.hermes.com/ -- provides
apparel. The Company offers retail sale of men's and boys
ready-to-wear clothing and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840
Glendale, CA. 91203
Phone: 818-962-6465
Email: alvin@yeremianlaw.com
HIGHLAND HEALTH: Wright Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Highland Health
Direct, LLC. The case is styled as Corey Wright, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Highland Health Direct,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02874-DMC (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Highland Health Care operates as a connector between individuals
and insurance providers, focusing on the healthcare industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander J. Taylor, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com
HOLLIS COBB ASSOCIATES: Morris Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investinet, LLC. The
case is styled as Kimberly Morris, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Investinet, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-04669-AT-WEJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 15, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
InvestiNet -- https://www.investinet.com/ -- is a full-service
receivables management firm.[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
ICF TECH: Mondello Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MONDELLO, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ICF
TECHNOLOGY, INC., ACCRETIVE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., Case No.
8:24-cv-01037-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) granting conditional certification to the Fair Labor
Standards
Act (FLSA) Collective:
"All current and former individuals who work or have worked
as
Performers for ICF Technology, Inc. and/or Accretive
Technology
Group, Inc. in the state of Florida at any time since three
(3)
years prior to the entry of the Order granting conditional
certification, and who elect to opt-in to this action
pursuant
to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);"
(2) directing the identification of all individuals in the FLSA
Collective; and
(3) authorizing the issuance of proposed Notice (Ex. A) to all
potential opt-in Plaintiffs. An accompanying proposed form
of
order follows, as permitted under the Court's General
Preferences.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has satisfied the modest factual showing
standard, and conditional certification of the FLSA Collective is
warranted.
ICF is a streaming and processing service provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cQw7TL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie A. Casey Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
E-mail: scasey@colson.com
- and -
Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
Tyler J. Burrell, Esq.
Gaetano J. DiPersia, Esq.
McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 985-9800
E-mail: cjk@njlegal.com
tjb@njlegal.com
gjd@njlegal.com
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Hunt Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sherman Hunt, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. ICF TECHNOLOGY INC. d/b/a ECHST.NET,
Case No. 24-2-20239-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court for
the State of Washington for the County of King, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
Oct. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01679.
The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff and putative class members
have brought this action to recover monetary damages, restitution,
and injunctive and declaratory relief "arising from Defendant's
deceptive and fraudulent billing practices." The Plaintiff alleges
generally that after consumers have made a purchase through an
"adult entertainment website that uses Defendant as its billing
service, armed with consumers' debit or credit card information,
Defendant later systematically charges consumers amounts above and
beyond what consumers agreed to pay." Based on these allegations,
Plaintiff asserts four claims for relief: breach of contract,
including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act
(CPA); violations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(EFTA), Regulation E; and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
Amanda Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Odom, Esq.
Erin M. Wilson, Esq.
Aaron Schaer, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
P.O. Box 91302
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Phone: 206.223.7000
Facsimile: 206.223.7107
Email: odomj@lanepowell.com
wilsonem@lanepowell.com
schaera@lanepowell.com
IMPACT FULFILLMENT: Vasquez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALBERTO VASQUEZ, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the State of California, and other
aggrieved persons, Plaintiff v. IMPACT FULFILLMENT SERVICES, LLC, a
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CVRI2401086, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on October 8, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02145 to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiff asserts, on behalf of himself and a putative class
consisting of all individuals who have been employed by IFS in
California since September 3, 2019 and classified as hourly or
non-exempt, eight causes of action for (1) failure to pay minimum
wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to provide
meal periods, (4) failure to permit rest breaks, (5) failure to
timely pay final wages at termination, (6) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, (7) failure to indemnify
employees for expenditures, and (8) unfair business practices.
Impact Fulfillment Services, LLC is a turnkey supply chain services
company.[BN]
Defendant Impact Fulfillment Services is represented by:
Matthew Scholl, Esq.
CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 909-7775
E-mail: mscholl@constangy.com
INDIANA UNIVERSITY: Team Physician Sues Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hogan, writing for The Bloomingtonian, reports that two
former Indiana University (IU) men's basketball players, Haris
Mujezinovic and Charlie Miller, have filed a class action lawsuit
against the Trustees of Indiana University, alleging that they and
their teammates were subjected to sexual abuse by a longtime team
physician. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, claims that Dr. Bradford Bomba, Sr.,
who served as the team's physician for nearly three decades,
performed medically unnecessary and invasive rectal exams on
players under the guise of routine physicals.
Mujezinovic, who played for the Hoosiers from 1995 to 1997, and
Miller, who played from 1994 to 1998, allege that IU failed to act
despite being aware of Dr. Bomba's actions. The lawsuit claims that
the university's failure to address complaints and its deliberate
indifference allowed the abuse to continue for years.
The lawsuit details how players were allegedly required to submit
to annual physicals by IU's designated doctors, including Dr.
Bomba, Sr., as a condition of participation in the men's basketball
program. The plaintiffs allege that during these physicals, Dr.
Bomba conducted unnecessary and invasive digital rectal exams on
young, healthy athletes. The complaint also claims that IU's
basketball staff, including trainers and assistant coaches, were
aware of the abuse but failed to intervene.
The plaintiffs are seeking class certification for all former IU
students who were allegedly victimized by Dr. Bomba, Sr. The
lawsuit further alleges that IU's handling of the situation
violated Title IX, a federal law designed to protect students from
sexual harassment and assault in educational programs that receive
federal funding.
Mujezinovic, a former professional basketball player who now owns a
construction business in Bloomington, and Miller, who founded a
basketball academy in Texas, say they did not realize the full
extent of IU's failure to protect them until consulting with legal
counsel this year. Both men claim the abuse and IU's inaction
deprived them and other athletes of a safe and healthy educational
environment.
"I will never understand why IU leadership did nothing to protect
us from what I now understand was sexual abuse," said Miller.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kathleen DeLaney, Matthew
Gutwein, and Alexander Pantos of DeLaney & DeLaney LLC. [GN]
INFORCE: Downtown LA Law Probes Ceither Bed Rails Product Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 19, 2024, Inforce issued a recall for their Ceither
Adult Portable Bed Rails. According to the recall (24-370), the
product violates federal regulations for adult portable bed rails,
and poses a severe entrapment risk and risk of death by
asphyxiation. More specifically, when the recalled bed rails are
attached to a bed, users can become entrapped either within the bed
rail or between the bed rail and the side of the mattress. This
recall affects approximately 1,170 units of the product.
The recalled product (ASIN: B09YRHCZY5) was sold to be used on
adult beds. The railing is made out of black metal and black foam,
and it measures approximately 12.5 inches wide with an adjustable
height ranging from 30 to 42 inches. Only products purchased on or
after August 21, 2023 are included in the recall.
The defective products were sold exclusively online at Amazon.com
for approximately $40 from August 21, 2023 through August 2024.
Reportedly, no incidents or injuries have been reported.
The company is urging all affected consumers to immediately stop
using the adult portable bed rails. They are offering refunds to
consumers who email them a photo of the disposed product along with
either a statement that they purchased the product on or after
August 21, 2023 or an Amazon purchase receipt.
If a member of your family died due to entrapment or asphyxia
related to the defective portable bed rails, it is important that
you seek legal assistance as soon as possible. You could have the
right to pursue a claim under product liability law.
Possible Injuries
As mentioned above, the defective product is associated with risks
of entrapment and asphyxiation. Victims may suffer sprains and
strains, lacerations, fractures, scrapes, and bruises. If the
entrapment is severe and asphyxiation occurs, victims may suffer
crushing injuries, respiratory distress, cardiac arrest, brain
damage, and more; victims may suffer fatal harm and die as a result
of the entrapment/asphyxiation.
What Should I Do?
If you were injured or a member of your family died as a result of
the defective portable bed rails, you might have questions about
what to do. Consider the following recommended steps to take:
-- Photograph the entire scene of the accident (before anything
is moved)
-- Take photos of all visible injuries
-- Seek medical care as soon as possible (if the incident
resulted in death, it is important that the cause of death is
clear)
-- Contact the company to report the incident and the harm
suffered
Stop using the defective product to avoid further harm
Do not agree to a free repair or free replacement product
Do not agree to return the product
Do not agree to a refund
Do not sign any document provided by the company
-- Gather any surveillance footage that might have captured the
incident
-- Speak to witnesses and collect their contact information (this
may include caregivers, at-home nurses, etc.)
-- Seek legal help as soon as possible with an experienced recall
lawyer
Common Question -- How Can I Join or be a Part of a Class Action
Lawsuit on this Case?
When it comes to recalls and defective products, class action
claims and mass torts claims are very common; this is because a
number of consumers can be harmed similarly. In general,
participating in a class action lawsuit can be as simple as
reaching out to a class action lawyer. Is there a class action
lawsuit? Since no incidents/injuries have been reported, there is
no class action yet. Can I file a class action lawsuit? Yes -- your
case could actually be the first to start the class action against
the product manufacturer. For more information about your right to
pursue your claim, contact us today.
Contact Us Today
Our team here at the Downtown L.A. Law Group is fully committed to
helping consumers fight for their rights and get justice. We have
decades of experience handling product liability claims and are
ready to provide you with the guidance that you need. We are
committed to remaining accessible to all, so we offer free case
evaluations. These include free consultations and free second
opinions; these ensure that you have access to all the information
that you need to begin or continue your claim. To schedule a free
case review, contact us today.
Zero-Fee Guarantee: you will never have to pay any upfront legal
costs for any of our legal services. In addition, our law firm
works on a strict contingency structure, so our clients will not
have to pay anything if their claims are not successful. If you do
not win, you simply will not pay anything.
Our recall experts are ready to help you with your claim! [GN]
INSTANTALIGN INC: Caldwell Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against InstantAlign
Incorporated. The case is styled as William Caldwell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. InstantAlign
Incorporated doing business as: Hirey, Case No. 2:24-cv-02816-DGC
(D. Ariz., Oct. 17, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
InstantAlign Incorporated doing business as Hirey --
https://hirey.com/ -- offers the most advanced, easy to use job
finder app for startups and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David James McGlothlin, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
301 East Bethany Home Road, Suite C-195
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Fax: (800) 520-5523
Email: david@kazlg.com
INTEREST MEDIA: Fridline Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Fridline, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. INTEREST MEDIA, INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-01770-MWB (M.D. Pa., Oct. 16, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") for making illegal telemarketing calls to numbers on the
National Do Not Call Registry, including his own.
The Plaintiff does not use the number for business reasons and the
number is not registered in the name of a business. The Plaintiff
never consented or requested in any way to receive calls from
Defendant. The Plaintiff never did business with the Defendant.
Despite this, the Plaintiff received a total of at least 8 text
messages from the Defendant's telephone numbers as part of a
telemarketing campaign.
The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the
acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated and they
were annoyed and harassed. In addition, the calls occupied their
telephone lines, storage space, and bandwidth, rendering them
unavailable for legitimate communication, including while driving,
working, and performing other critical tasks, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's residential telephone number is on the National Do
Not Call Registry, and has been for over a year prior to the
messages at issue.
Interest Media, Inc. is a Missouri Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
- and -
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW PC
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 485-0018
Fax: (508) 318-8100
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Magana Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Omar Magana, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; SELECT
STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV21369 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court
of the State of California, to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on Oct. 15, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-08867.
The Complaint purports to assert eight categories of labor code and
wage order violations against IP on a class-wide basis, stemming
from the employment of Plaintiff and the putative class members.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges causes of action under the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code for:
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime compensation;
failure to provide meal periods; failure to authorize and permit
rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary business expenses;
failure to timely pay final wages at termination; failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; and unfair business
practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron F. Olsen, Esq.
Christopher M. Champine, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Nellis, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 597-9600
Facsimile: (858) 597-9601
Email: aolsen@fisherphillips.com
cchampine@fisherphillips.com
jnellis@fisherphillips.com
JOHN WOOD: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response Briefs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Martha Walther, Trent
Kumfer, Jayme Lea, Megan Kelsey, Dave Lowe, Carol Whisler, and
Michele Porter, as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the 80/20, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, v. John Wood and Brian Eagle, Case No. 1:23-cv-00294-GSL-SLC
(N.D. Ind.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order
granting a 90-day extension of time to file their briefs in
response to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification until
Jan. 16, 2025.
The Defendants seek this extension for the good cause of needing
sufficient time to respond to plaintiffs' class certification
motion, including the expert report in which a newly identified
expert purports to opine on the feasibility of numerous theories of
recovery on a class-wide basis, including new theories of recovery
not presented in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.
An extension until mid-January provides sufficient time for
Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants' discovery requests, to
participate in depositions in which Defendants can test, among
other things, their adequacy as class representatives, and to make
their expert available for deposition.
The Defendants' requested extension will not delay discovery, which
is proceeding. Since the Court's order on June 13, 2024 ordering
all defendants other than Wood to substantially complete their
document productions, the Defendants have been diligently engaged
in document production and have collectively produced over 20,000
documents.
On Sept. 30, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant Eagle's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint and granted entirely the motion to dismiss of Defendants
Patrick Buesching, Patrice Mauk, Rodney Strack, MPE Partners II,
L.P., MPE Partners III, L.P., and Pareto Efficient Solutions, LLC.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nH6xFm at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
The Defendants are represented by:
Philip J. Gutwein II, Esq.
Emily A. Kile-Maxwell, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-0300
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: philip.gutwein@faegredrinker.com
emily.kilemaxwell@faegredrinker.com
- and -
David K. Herzog, Esq.
Molly E. Harkins Broadhead, Esq.
HOOVER HULL TURNER LLP
111 Monument Circle, Suite 4400
Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989
Telephone: (317) 822-4400
Facsimile: (317) 381-5643
E-mail: dherzog@hooverhullturner.com
mbroadhead@hooverhullturner.com
JOHNSON & WALES: Springer Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIELLA SPRINGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & WALES UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00399-JJM-PAS (D.R.I., October 7, 2024) is an action on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated victims as
a result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the
personally identifiable information suffered by Johnson & Wales
University.
On July 11, 2024, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained
access to JWU's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, name and
Social Security number. As a result of the data breach, the
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered injury and ascertainable
losses in the form of the present and imminent threat of fraud and
identity theft, loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, loss of value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack, and the loss of, and
diminution in, value of their personal information.
In addition, the Plaintiff's and Class Members’ sensitive PII --
which was entrusted to Defendant -- was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the data breach. This information, while
compromised and taken by unauthorized third parties, remains also
in the possession of Defendant, and without additional safeguards
and independent review and oversight, remains vulnerable to future
cyberattacks and theft.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' PII that Defendant collected and maintained, and
for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party.
Johnson & Wales University is a private university with its main
campus in Providence, Rhode Island.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kensley R. Barrett, Esq.
MARIN BARRETT & MURPHY
1000 Chapel View Blvd, Suite 260
Cranston, RI 02920
Telephone: (401) 228-8271
E-mail: kb@marinbarrettmurphy.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE Ist Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
KANSAS STAR: Perry Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON V. PERRY,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KANSAS STAR CASINO, LLC, et al. Case No. 6:24-cv-01183-KHV-ADM (D.
Kan.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- granting Plaintiff's motion and conditionally certifying the
proposed Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective;
"All persons employed as table games dealers and included
within a
tip pooling arrangement at a casino property operated by a
Defendant at any time from Jan. 1, 2022 to Mar. 8, 2024,"
-- approving the form and method of notice outlined in the Notice
Plan, and
-- instructing the Defendants to provide Plaintiff's counsel with
the
data required by the Notice Plan within 14 days of the Court's
Order granting this motion.
The case involves a proposed collective made up of table games
dealers who participated in a mandatory tip pool at one of
Defendants’ nine casino properties.
The alleged common, FLSA violating policy is that a portion of the
table games dealers' tips were paid to Dual Rate Supervisors—a
dual-job role under the FLSA, i.e., one worker performs two
different job functions under two different titles for an
employer—for Paid Time Off. Plaintiff alleged the PTO was accrued
in a non-tipped, supervisory role and, as a result, could not be
paid with the dealers' pooled tips.
As a result, Plaintiff seeks to void the tip credit for dealers who
were paid below the minimum wage as well as seeks the return of the
misappropriated tips under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
Kansas Star is a casino and hotel in western Mulvane, Kansas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SmYjdT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Benjamin J. Stueve, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
ben.stueve@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068-1170
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
KASAMBA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Employees Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
24-7PressRelease reports that on September 9, 2024, a former
spiritual advisor filed a lawsuit against Kasamba, Inc.
("Defendant"). The named plaintiff asserts individual claims and
claims on behalf of other similarly situated readers (also referred
to as astrologers, life coaches, counseling readers, tarot
advisors, and psychic advisors). The Complaint alleges that Kasamba
misclassified the Plaintiff and other Readers as independent
contractors, seeking to avoid various duties and obligations owed
to employees under California's Labor Code and wage orders.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that as a result of the
misclassification, Kasamba failed to pay minimum wages for all
hours worked, failed to reimburse for business expenses, unlawfully
deducted from earned wages, failed to furnish accurate wage
statements, failed to provide all wages owed upon termination, and
failed to comply with pay timing requirements.
The plaintiff brought the case as a putative class action seeking
to recover damages, penalties, and other statutorily-permitted
relief for himself and others.
Kasamba offers online psychic readings, tarot readings, astrology
readings, and other types of readings via phone, live chat, and
email. Kasamba claims on its website that "Since 1999, Kasamba's
psychics have guided over 3 million people in their paths to true
love and happiness, career success and self-empowerment."
The Plaintiff's attorneys, Daniel S. Brome of Nichols Kaster, LLP,
explained, "Kasamba requires its Readers to use its platform, and
then charges them for it. We believe Kasamba's misclassification of
its workforce, and the violations that flow from that
misclassification, are clear."
The Plaintiff is represented by Daniel S. Brome from Nichols
Kaster, LLP in San Francisco, California, Reena I. Desai from
Nichols Kaster, PLLP in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Christopher Q.
Davis and Jessica S. Cahill of Working Solutions Law Firm, LLC in
New York, New York. The case is Simic v. Kasamba, Inc. Case No.:
24STCV23254 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County).
Additional information about this case may be found at www.nka.com
or by calling (612) 256-3249.
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, an employee, consumer, and civil rights firm
has dedicated over 45 years to fighting for clients in individual
and class action matters. With offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota
and San Francisco, California, the firm is perfectly situated for
the work it does representing plaintiffs in cases across the
country. The firm has recently received a First Tier ranking on the
2024 Best Law Firms List in Minneapolis for Litigation-Labor and
Employment by U.S. News-Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms." [GN]
KASAMBA INC: Simic Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Albert Simic, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. KASAMBA, INC., Case No. 24STCV23254
was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State
of California, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on Oct. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-08887.
The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages for All Hours Worked; Unlawful Withholding and
Receipt of Earned Wages; Failure to Furnish Accurate Wage
Statements; Failure to Pay Earned Wages Upon Discharge – Waiting
Time Penalties; and Violations of the Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Phone: (415) 576-3000
Facsimile: (415) 576-3099
Email: michael.brewer@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Kimberly F. Rich, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
1900 North Pearl Street, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-3000
Facsimile: (214) 978-3099
Email: kimberly.rich@bakermckenzie.com
- and -
Phillip R. Di Tullio, Esq.
BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-4728
Facsimile: (310) 201-4721
Email: phillip.ditullio@bakermckenzie.com
KERN COUNTY, CA: Bid to Modify Class Settlement Deal OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as T.G., et al., v. KERN
COUNTY, et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00257-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court
entered an order granting the parties' stipulated request to
further modify the class action settlement agreement to the extent
of incorporating the Third Addendum and the extended timetable.
The Court finds that the settlement as proposed with modification
remains and is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that Class
Members received adequate notice.
On June 5, 2020, the Court granted final approval of the parties'
proposed class action settlements and granted Plaintiffs’ motion
for fees and costs.
On Aug. 15, 2023, the Court granted the parties' stipulation for
modification of the class settlement agreement.
On Feb. 21, 2018, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing a
complaint on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly
situated, asserting the following causes of action:
(1) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
section 12101 et seq.;
(2) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794
et
seq.;
(3) violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act,
20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq.;
(4) violation of Cal. Gov't Code section 11135; and
(5) violation of California Education Code for Students with
Disabilities.
Kern comprises the Bakersfield, California, Metropolitan
statistical area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H6ApsU at no extra
charge.[CC]
LA BOOM INC: Gomez Sues Over Consistent Failure to Pay Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kerly Gomez, Yohama Gonzales, Alexa Linares, Angela Del Pilar
Grisales Huila, Lina Restrepo, Eliana Rodriguez, Paola Usuga,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA
BOOM INC., LA BOOM EVENTS INC., LA BOOM DISCO INC., 1 PEZA INC, and
PEDRO ZAMORA, Case No. 721838/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty.,
Oct. 15, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' consistent
failure to pay wages within the time required by the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class to
purchase and wear coordinated custom uniforms, did not launder or
offer to launder, and did not pay uniform maintenance pay. The
Defendants did not reimburse Plaintiff and the Proposed Class for
the costs of their required uniforms no later than at the next
available payment of wages. the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and the Proposed Class minimum wage under the NYLL by claiming
improper tip credits and not paying them for all hours worked. The
Defendants unlawfully retained tips. The Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs on a timely basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
La Boom Inc. is a domestic business corporation with its service
of
process located in Woodside, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 718-669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
LENDINGTREE LLC: Macom Suit Transferred to D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Aaron Macom, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LENDINGTREE, LLC, QuoteWizard.com,
LLC, and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00802 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on
Oct. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00159-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
LendingTree, Inc. -- https://www.lendingtree.com/ -- is an online
lending marketplace, founded in 1996 and headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, Ste. 300
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 540-7200
Fax: (202) 540-7201
Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and -
Steven Nathan, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (646) 357-1100
Email: snathan@hausfeld.com
- and -
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Evans Reed, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Ste 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Phone: (650) 801-5107
Email: joereed@quinnemanuel.com
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Lanz Suit Due Dec. 16
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered the revised class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on Dec. 16,
2024.
Defendants' response to said motion is due within 30 days of the
filing of the class certification motion.
Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response is due within 30 days
of
the filing of said response.
Further, the discovery period is extended until April 8, 2025, and
the dispositive motion and Daubert deadlines are extended until May
8, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6I6RWH at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages & Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn E. Milz, writing for Sommers Schwartz, reports that a new
lawsuit alleges that numerous insurers have violated Michigan law
by systematically underpaying non-professional, in-home attendant
care providers. Specifically, the class action claims the
defendants unlawfully withheld the overtime pay that family members
and non-agency caregivers deserve for the care they provide to
injured accident victims.
Michigan's No-Fault Act Provides Fair Compensation for In-Home
Attendant Care
Michigan courts have routinely interpreted Michigan's Automobile
No-Fault Insurance Act to fully and fairly compensate policyholders
for in-home attendant care provided by an injured person's family,
friends, and neighbors. This law allows an accident victim to
employ family members or other private individuals to provide care
so they can recover from their injuries at home rather than in an
in-patient facility.
Michigan courts have also held that fair compensation for these
workers is comparable to what professional agencies would charge
for these services. Professional in-home care agencies are required
by state and federal overtime laws to pay employees time-and-a-half
rates for all the time they work once they've worked 40 hours in a
week.
Systemic Undervaluation and Underpayment of Non-Professional
Caregivers
In many cases, non-professional individuals providing in-home care
for Michigan accident victims work more than 40 hours per week.
This case illustrates how insurers routinely undervalue and
underpay these workers, violating state law.
The lead plaintiff in the class action, Candace Boyer, has served
as her mother's primary in-home caregiver since the latter was
injured in an auto accident in April 2024. Her mother was
prescribed attendant care exceeding 40 hours per week, which her
insurer approved. When Ms. Boyer received payment, she discovered
her time was paid at a straight-time hourly rate. None of her
overtime service was paid at time-and-a-half.
The parties agree the prescribed care was reasonably necessary and
related to the motor vehicle accident and do not dispute the
accuracy of the charge, adequacy of the supporting documentation,
or timeliness of the request in question. The insurer honored the
No-Fault claim, approved the attendant care benefits, and issued
payment for Ms. Boyer's mother's care. However, it failed to
compensate her at the appropriate rate for her overtime hours.
Holding Insurers Accountable for Underpayment of Earned Benefits
Ms. Boyer's lawsuit levies claims against her mother's insurer,
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and additional insurers she
alleges are controlled by the same entity or entities. The other
named defendants are Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, State
Auto Mutual Insurance Companies, Liberty Mutual Group Inc., LMHC
Massachusetts Holdings Inc., and Liberty Mutual Holding Company
Inc.
The suit alleges that the insurers unlawfully established and
implemented a policy of improperly valuing and compensating
family-provided, non-agency attendant care benefits. This policy
violates their obligation to correctly value overtime and pay a
reasonable charge for such services. Because it is a systemic
problem, this policy has likely caused similar damage to many other
similarly situated caregivers.
If you, a loved one, or someone you know has been improperly
underpaid for attendant care benefits related to a Michigan
No-Fault Insurance claim, Sommers Schwartz can help. We are
interviewing people to join the class action lawsuit. Please
contact attorney Kathryn Milz for a free consultation. [GN]
MEPHISTO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Abramson Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEPHISTO, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07253 (E.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.mephistousa.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inadequate
focus order, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same
URL address and the requirement that transactions be performed
solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Mephisto, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NATIONAL GRID: Nightingale Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL
GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US
INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order grating class certification pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & 23(b)(3).
The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court certify the
following class and sub-class:
The Class
"All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
whom, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (a)
Defendants initiated in-excess of two telephone calls regarding
a
debt within a seven-day period to the person’s residence,
cellular
telephone, or other provided telephone number, and (b) the
person
received one of the calls."
NER1BO & NER5BO Sub-Class
"All persons residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to
whom, within four years prior to the filing of this action, (a)
Defendants initiated in excess of two telephone calls regarding
a
debt within a seven-day period to the person's residence,
cellular
telephone, or other provided telephone number pursuant to
Program
Codes NGR.USUT.FE.NER1BO or NGR.USUT.FE.NER5BO, and (b) the
person
received one of the calls."
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Plaintiff as
the class representative and appoint Lemberg Law, LLC, as class
counsel.
National Grid distributes electricity and gas energy.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GIKHbW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Stephen Taylor, Esq.
Joshua Markovits, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW L.L.C.
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: (203) 653-2250
Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
NATURAL ORGANICS: Theus Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHAKA THEUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATURAL ORGANICS, INC. d/b/a NaturesPlus,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08780-CAS-SK (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets a
mislabeled dietary supplements under the brand name NaturesPlus.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant
deceptively labels certain of its NaturesPlus products by
misrepresenting the dosage amount of each capsule, tablet, or
gummy. Specifically, the front labels of the NaturesPlus Products
prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for example, "Iron
40 mg." The front labels also advertise the number of capsules,
tablets, or gummies included in each Product, for example, 90
tablets. Reasonable consumers are led to believe that each capsule,
tablet, or gummy contains the advertised dosage amount, for
example, 40 mg of iron in each tablet.
The Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would not
have paid as much as she did for it, had she known that each
capsule contained only a fraction of the advertised dosage.
Plaintiff paid a premium for the Product due to the misleading
labelling on the Product's packaging.
Natural Organics, Inc., doing business as Nature's Plus,
manufactures and supplies energy supplements. The Company offers
amino acids, antioxidants, herbs, minerals, personal care, protein,
vitamins, and nutritional supplements. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Golden Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHERHONDA GOLDEN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Sherhonda Golden, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBCUniversal Media,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-9858, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant over alleged violation of the federal
Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing its digital
subscribers' identities and video media to Facebook without proper
consent.
On Jan. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class
action complaint.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendant moved to dismiss on Mar. 10, 2023.
On Sept. 7, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
On Sept. 14, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint,
which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Sept. 21, 2023.
On Sept. 11, 2024, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's third amended complaint. The
Court held that the third amended complaint does not state a claim
that the Plaintiff was a "subscriber," and therefore a "consumer,"
under the VPPA. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the VPPA claim.
The appellate case is captioned Golden v. NBCUniversal Media, LLC,
Case No. 24-2649, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on October 4, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant SHERHONDA GOLDEN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Michael L. Murphy, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Defendant-Appellee NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC is represented by:
Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq.
ZWILLGEN PLLC
1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
Chicago, IL 60602
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and
NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting certification of the following class of nurses employed by
the Defendants:
"All nurses who are or were subject to NCH's Specialty
Fellowship
Program Employment Agreement and the training repayment
provisions
therein at any point from July 31, 2019 through trial."
Finally, there are no manageability issues. The class is reasonably
identified through the employment records and Agreements produced
by NCH.70 The central issues in this action can be determined by
the factfinder on a class-wide basis. 71 Damages are calculable on
a class-wide basis.72 And this Court retains the ability to
decertify or adopt other measures should issues arise in the
future. See Cherry v. Dometic Corp., 986 F.3d 1296, 1304 (11th Cir.
2021). The class action mechanism is superior.
This case involves more than 230 employees with the same job title,
working for the same employer in the same location, and subject to
the same employment terms. Those employees—including Plaintiff
Lauren McFalls—all worked as nurses for NCH and were subject to
NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program Employment Agreement and the
training repayment provisions therein ("TRAP"). For all these
nurses, participation in NCH's training program and execution of
the TRAP was a condition of employment. For all these nurses, the
terms of the TRAP were the same, i.e., if they left before
completing two years of work for NCH, they would owe NCH $5,000.
NCH is a healthcare system that operates two hospitals in Naples,
Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sm3vTa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Joshua R. Cottle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, Esq.
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
jcottle@nka.com
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Jeffrey Newsome, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
rachel@towardsjustice.org
NEIMAN MARCUS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Reichbart Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC REICHBART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00154-BMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for
its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information of its customers, including names, emails,
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, last four digits of
Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, transaction data, and
employee identification numbers.
On May 20, 2024, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal
information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that the Defendant would protect it against
unauthorized disclosure -- was compromised in a data breach. The
Data Breach included personal details of about 31million
customers.
The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the Data Breach until
June 24, 2024. Omitted from the data breach notice letter were the
details of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities
exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a
breach does not occur again. To date, these omitted details have
not been explained or clarified to the Plaintiff, who retains a
vested interest in ensuring that their PII remains protected, the
suit claims.
The exposure of the PII involved in this data breach is
particularly alarming because threat actors may use the data to
circumvent SMS-based multifactor authentication security measures
by intercepting multifactor authentication codes sent via text.
Therefore, the Plaintiff and Class Members must incur out of pocket
costs for purchasing products to protect from phishing, smishing
(SMS message), vishing (voice messaging), pretexting, and other
sophisticated attacks, contends the suit.
Plaintiff Reichbart has been a resident of Lakewood, Walton County,
Florida. The Plaintiff received a data breach notice letter from
Defendant in July 2024. He has noticed an increase in spam calls,
texts and/or emails since the occurrence of the Data Breach.
Neiman Marcus is an American department store chain focusing on
luxury retail incorporating the internationally recognized names of
several high-end brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS GENTILE
14 NE 1st Avenue Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
NETFLIX INC: Faces Abramson Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ABRAMSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07252 (E.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.paristheaternyc.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on
graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation
links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements and the requirement
that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Netflix, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Dates OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OE 1, et al., v. NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00017 (M.D.N.C., Filed: Jan. 08, 2024), the Hon. Judge
Loretta C. Biggs entered an order granting joint motion to extend
class certification briefing deadlines.
-- The Defendants shall have up to and including Monday, Nov. 18,
2024, to file a response brief to Plaintiffs' motion for class
Certification.
-- The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including Monday, Dec. 9,
2024, to file a reply brief in support of their motion for
class
certification.
-- The parties shall not anticipate any further extension of the
deadlines.
The nature of suit states civil rights violation.
The NC Department of Public Safety is North Carolina's statewide
public safety and homeland security agency.[CC]
OAK STREET: $60MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 12
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REGINALD T. ALLISON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs.
OAK CLASS ACTION STREET HEALTH, INC., ET AL., et al.,
Defendants
CASE NO. 1:22-CV-00149
JUDGE JEFFREY I. CUMMINGS
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO OR WHICH PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED OAK STREET HEALTH, INC. ("OAK STREET HEALTH") PUBLICLY
TRADED COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 6, 2020 THROUGH
NOVEMBER 8, 2021, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that (i) the above
captioned Action has been preliminarily certified as a class
action, as defined in the full printed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses ("Notice"); and (ii) Plaintiffs and Defendants have
reached an agreement to settle the Action, and related claims, for
$60,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If the Settlement is
approved, it will resolve all claims in the Action. Any capitalized
terms used in this Summary Notice that are not defined have the
meanings given to them in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated August 13, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), and the
Notice.
A final approval hearing will be held on December 12, 2024, at
11:00 a.m. (the "Final Approval Hearing"), before the Honorable
Jeffrey I. Cummings at the United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, to
determine, among other things, whether the Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) finally certify the Settlement Class for purposes of the
Settlement; (iii) enter the proposed Judgment dismissing the Action
and related claims with prejudice; (iv) approve the proposed Plan
of Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and
(v) approve Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with the
Action, together with interest accrued thereon, which may include
an award to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with their
representation of the Settlement Class. The Court may change the
date or location of the Final Approval Hearing, or decide to hold
it remotely, without providing another notice. Please check the
Settlement website for information about the hearing:
www.OakStreetHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Oak Street Health publicly
traded common stock during the period from August 6, 2020 through
November 8, 2021, both dates inclusive, your rights will be
affected by the Settlement and you may be entitled to a monetary
payment. If you have not received a copy of the detailed Notice,
which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights, and
a Claim Form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation and other settlement documents, online at
www.OakStreetHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com or by writing to:
Oak Street Health Securities Settlement
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91060
Seattle, WA 98111
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form either by mail (postmarked no later than November 21, 2024) or
electronically at www.OakStreetHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com (no
later than November 21, 2024). Your failure to submit your Claim
Form by November 21, 2024 will subject your claim to rejection and
preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with
the Settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgment, or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you want to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than
November 21, 2024, in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice referred to above. All members of the Settlement Class who
do not timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement
Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant
to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation. If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any releases, judgment, or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not receive any benefits from the Settlement.
Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or
Co-Lead Counsel's Fee and Expense Application must be mailed or
delivered to the Clerk of the Court and counsel for the Parties at
the addresses below and in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than
November 21, 2024:
Court:
Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
Co-Lead Counsel Representative:
Theodore J. Pintar
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants' Counsel Representative:
Andrew J. Ehrlich
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Questions? Visit www.OakStreetHealthSecuritiesSettlement.com or
call toll-free at 1-877-753-2587.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PATREON INC: Data Sharing Class Settlement Gets Court's Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a magistrate judge
has granted preliminary approval to a $7.25 million Patreon
settlement, and eligible users can now file a claim form for
compensation at PatreonSettlement.com.
The Patreon settlement, which received preliminary approval from
United States Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on September 23,
2024, covers anyone who, between April 1, 2016 and September 23 of
this year, requested or obtained video content on Patreon.com while
in the U.S. and had a Facebook account and Patreon account at the
time.
To file a Patreon settlement claim form, head to this page and
enter the unique ID and PIN found at the top of the settlement
notice you should have received via email. Patreon class members
need both the unique settlement ID and PIN in order to file a claim
form online.
Additionally, you will need to include the link to your Facebook
profile page on the claim form to allow the settlement
administrator to verify that you are in fact covered by the
settlement. The URL that you provide with your claim form "must
correspond with a Facebook profile that includes your personal
information," the website relays.
The deadline to file a Patreon settlement claim form is January 1,
2025.
The official settlement website states that, based on "claims rates
in similar cases," eligible Patreon class members may receive a
payout of between $35 and $175 each from the settlement. The
website stipulates that the actual per-person payout amount for the
Patreon settlement may be higher or lower than the estimated
amounts depending on the number of valid claims that are filed.
Patreon settlement payments will be distributed sometime after the
court grants final approval to the deal. A final approval hearing
is scheduled for February 5, 2025. It is typically after the court
grants final approval to a class action settlement that
compensation and/or settlement rebates begin to be distributed to
consumers.
In addition to paying $7.25 million into the settlement fund,
Patreon has also agreed not to use the Meta Pixel on any web page
on its website that includes video content unless the federal Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) is amended, repealed or otherwise
invalidated; Patreon obtains consent from users; or the Meta Pixel
on the relevant page otherwise complies with the VPPA.
The initial Patreon lawsuit alleged that the subscriber-supported
platform violated the VPPA by using a Meta (Facebook) Pixel, a
snippet of programming code, to collect and share users' personal
information, including Facebook ID numbers, with the social media
company. At no point did Patreon obtain consent from users to share
their video viewing data with a third party, the suit claimed. [GN]
PERDUE AGRIBUSINESS: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Groundwater
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware Business Now reports that a law firm with offices in
Delaware and Maryland has filed a class action lawsuit U.S.
District Court after Perdue Agribusiness reported elevated levels
of PFAS in groundwater near its Salisbury, MD, site.
Baird Mandalas Brfockstedt and Federico's firm filed the civil
suit, which lists five plaintiffs residing near the plant and seeks
damages.
PFAS have been widely used in manufacturing and processing
operations for decades and are known as "forever chemicals" since
they don't break down.
The law firm had filed a similar suit in 2023 in connection with a
Cecil County, MD site operated by W.L. Gore and Associates. Gore
is headquartered in Newark.
On Oct. 1, Perdue announced the presence of PFAs, adding that an
investigation would occur after state environmental testing
detected the chemicals.
"Perdue has been part of the Maryland community for more than 100
years, and we have always prioritized doing what's right," said
Kevin McAdams, CEO of Perdue Farms. "Our commitment to safety and
environmental stewardship remains unwavering, and we will continue
working with local residents and state officials in full
transparency, to ensure that all concerns are addressed. In order
to determine the underlying source of PFAS, we've engaged outside
experts to help us investigate and determine the source."
Perdue AgriBusiness stated that it works with residents within a
half-mile radius of the facility, encompassing about 550 homes.
Perdue will offer free well water testing to homes that use private
wells and is setting up a dedicated webpage and phone line.
Baird Mandalas started in Delaware and now has four offices in the
First State and one in Baltimore after merging with a practice in
that city.
Perdue also has operations in southern Delaware that employ about
3,000. [GN]
PERRY RUSSELL: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LYONS, v. PERRY
RUSSELL, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00335-MMD-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon.
Judge Craig Denney recommends that the District Judge enter an
order denying the Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class
action and denying as moot the motion to stay this case pending
class certification.
The Plaintiff does not explain the factual circumstances for the
remaining unnamed proposed class members. While Plaintiff contends
that approximately 150 inmates were taken from their medical
housing unit to the field during a search of the unit, Plaintiff
also asserts that after approximately an hour, "the C-Wing men"
were called to return to their unit, and other inmates were allowed
to access shade in front of the gym and others were taken to the
culinary.
He does not specify how many inmates comprised the group of "C-Wing
men" or how many inmates were offered shade or other relief from
the outdoor conditions after an hour.
As such, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that each of the
approximately unnamed 150 inmates that were taken to the field that
day suffered the same injury. Nor does Plaintiff establish that
even the named class members suffered the same injury.
As a result, Plaintiff's motion for class certification should be
denied, and the motion to stay this action pending class
certification should be denied as moot.
The Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim is
based on allegations that on July 11, 2021, Sergeant Sandra Walker
required him and 150 other inmates in his medical housing unit at
NNCC to be detained on NNCC's athletic field in temperatures
exceeding 100 degrees without access to toilets, shelter,
sunscreen, or sanitary water.
The Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department
of Corrections (NDOC), proceeding pro se with this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Oct. 15,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G73d9y at no extra charge.[CC]
PINNACLE TOO: Non-Exempt Employees Wins Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEXLON CHARLES, et al., v.
PINNACLE TOO, LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04232-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order:
-- certifying a class of:
"current and former non-exempt employees, including journeymen,
electricians, laborers, and technicians, and assemblers
employed
by Agir Electrical, Ltd. from May 23, 2016," alleging
violations
of New York Labor Law ("NYLL");"
-- adopting Plaintiff's proposed Order and proposed Notice;
-- denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Final Collective
Certification; and
-- denying Defendant's motion to decertify the collective action.
Because Plaintiff alleges Defendants' rounding, meal break, and
time shaving policies were systematically applied to all the
workers across the different worksites, and because proving the
illegality of such policies necessitates the compilation of common
proof, here, the common issues predominate over the individual
ones.
The Plaintiff has met his burden, and Plaintiff's motion to certify
a Rule 23(b)(3) class is granted.
Finally, because the Plaintiff has adequately linked the failure to
provide wage statements to lost wages and because a wage notice is
closely related to the historical analog of the action for account,
the Plaintiffs have Article III standing.
The Plaintiff, Dexlon Charles, is a journeyman who worked for the
Defendants Pinnacle Electric, Pinnacle Too, and FrankCrum.
Pinnacle is "an electrical contractor for commercial and
residential properties throughout New York City."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0gx7O5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PREMERA BLUE: Seeks to Seal Confidential Info in L.B. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B., on behalf
of their minor child A.B., and on behalf of similarly situated
others; L.B.; M.B., C.M. and A.H., on behalf of their minor child
J.M., and on behalf of similarly situated others; C.M.; and A.H.,
v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case No. 2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Premera's
motion to seal and order that the confidential exhibits remain
sealed.
The Defendant Premera files this motion to seal so that the parties
who seek to seal confidential information contained in
(1) Premera's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition
to
Motion for Summary Judgment (the "MSJ Motion"); and
(2) the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Gwendolyn C.
Payton
in support of Premera's MSJ Motion and Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification satisfy the
requirements of LCR 5(g)(3)(B).
The Plaintiffs allege that Premera's Medical Policy on
gender-affirming surgery discriminates on the basis of age and sex
in violation of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act.
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company based in Mountlake Terrace, Washington.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SnnDGb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq.
Ashley D. Burman, Esq.
Stephanie Bedard, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 626-7714
Facsimile: (206) 623-6793
E-mail: gpayton@ktslaw.com
aburman@ktslaw.com
sbedard@ktslaw.com
PRIMMER & PIPER: Court Narrows Claims in Gaboriault
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWNA GABORIAULT, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRIMMER,
PIPER, EGGLESTON, & CRAMER, P.C., AND JOHN DOES 1 TO 10, Case No.
2:24-cv-00113-wks (D. Vt.), the Hon. Judge William Sessions III
entered an order granting in part and denying in part PPEC's motion
to dismiss.
Accordingly, the Court finds that, at this stage in the case, the
economic loss rule does not bar Plaintiff's claims.
The Court agrees that the allegations in the Complaint are
conclusory, as they provide no factual basis for claiming that
PPEC's hiring and/or retention was negligent.
While PPEC contends that it received no benefit from the personal
information, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive since
acquisition of the PII and PHI afforded at least a joint benefit to
Mr. Gilbertson and his attorneys.
The Court finds that PPEC shared a benefit with its client. The
motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim for lack of any
benefit to PPEC is therefore denied
The Plaintiff, individually and as personal representative of a
putative class, brings this action against the law firm of Primmer
Piper Eggleston & Cramer and various John Does (collectively
"PPEC") claiming that PPEC failed to protect her personal
information from a cyberattack.
The Plaintiff specifically alleges that PPEC, while representing an
opposing party in litigation, obtained her identity and health
information and is now liable for damages resulting from the
release of that information to an unknown third party.
This case centers on a data breach that allegedly occurred between
Nov. 8 and Nov. 11, 2021.
On Nov. 23, 2021, PPEC reported the breach to the Attorney General
for the State of New Hampshire.
Primmer is a full-Service law firm offering deep legal expertise to
individuals, businesses, and organizations.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QxNzkO
at no extra charge.[CC]
PROTEINSIMPLE: Carrillo Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Juan Carrillo, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly situated employees v. PROTEINSIMPLE; BIO-TECHNE
SALES CORPORATION; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24CV091274 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Alameda, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 17,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-07253.
The Complaint asserts three causes of action: Violation of Labor
Code Sections 1194, 1197, and 1197.1; Violation of Labor Code
Sections 510, 558, and 1194; and Violation of Business and
Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lisa M. Pooley, Esq.
Matthew B. Seipel, Esq.
Jennifer A. Puza, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: (415) 777-3200
Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
Email: lpooley@hansonbridgett.com
mseipel@hansonbridgett.com
jpuza@hansonbridgett.com
QUANTUM RESIDENTIAL: More Time to Mail Settlement Notice Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DUNNE,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. QUANTUM
RESIDENTIAL, INC., a Washington for-profit corporation, Case No.
3:23-cv-05535-DGE (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order granting an extension of time to mail the settlement
notice packets by 32 days, until Nov. 4, 2024.
Because the Motion for Attorney Fees is due on the same day, the
Parties request this deadline to be reset to the same date.
This request is made in good faith because, in reviewing the class
list produced, along with the Amended Preliminary Approval Order,
the Parties noticed some anomalies in the data as well as
inconsistencies. To ensure the Settlement Notice Packets are
accurate, the Parties request the thirty-two (32) day extension.
Further, the Parties request an amended preliminary approval order
because the preliminary approval order signed by the Court,
submitted previously by the Plaintiff, failed to include the Oregon
class members.
The Settlement Agreement defines the class as:
"all individuals who (1) resided in Washington State or Oregon
State, (2) were employed by Defendant, (3) in the position of
maintenance technician or maintenance manager, (4) and who were
paid on an hourly rate, (5) at any time from June 14, 2020 to
June
14, 2023."
The exclusion of the Oregon component of the class definition was a
scrivener's error, overlooked by both Parties. The entry of the
attached Second Amended Preliminary Approval Order will resolve the
issues identified by the Parties. Exhibit 1 is a redlined version
comparing the First Amended Preliminary Approval Order to the
Second Amended Preliminary Approval Order.
The other deadlines that would be affected by this extension would
be those deadlines stemming from the date notice is issued, which
include the deadline for Class Members to postmark requests to
exclude themselves, or "opt-out," or to file objections to the
settlement (45 days from issuance of notice), the deadline for
Class Members to submit signed opt-in consent forms (45 days), and
the deadline for the settlement administrator to provide a report
(15 days after close of notice period).
Quantum is a third party property management firm that specializes
in large multifamily properties.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BuHhnQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
705 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6411
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephanie Berntsen, Esq.
Lilian K. Hubbard, Esq.
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-4010
Telephone: (206) 622-1711
E-mail: sberntsen@schwabe.com
lhubbard@schwabe.com
RAMON REYES: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Robles Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAMON REYES, LLC, d/b/a HAPPY MUNKEY, and
VLADIMIR BAUTISTA, LLC d/b/a HAPPY MUNKEY, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-07574 (S.D.N.Y., October 7, 2024) is a civil action against
the Defendants for their failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate the website, www.happymunkey.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law.
The Plaintiff discovered Defendants' website around September 28,
2024, as a result of a glowing recommendation by a close friend who
had been aware of Plaintiff's condition, and the potential benefits
and uses of marijuana and related products. Therefore, on this same
day, the Plaintiff accessed Defendant's website for the first time
with a sighted relative and was very impressed with the companies
thoroughness of each product sold online, detailing each of its
unique characteristics.
However, despite the website's apparent thoroughness and
transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility
barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its services, when
he attempted to access the site by himself to discover crucial
information regarding the presence of any contraindications
therein. This has not only limited his ability to make informed
decisions but also infringed on his rights as a consumer and
individual with a disability, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack Appeals Amended Class Cert. Bid Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
YVONNE MACK is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
revised motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
Yvonne Mack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06300, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants over alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
On June 5, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Sara L.
Ellis on Feb. 3, 2020.
On Apr. 9, 2021, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction.
On Sept. 1, 2021, Judge Ellis granted the motion and dismissed the
case without prejudice. The Court dismissed the case without
prejudice saying the named class representative lacked standing.
Moreover, because the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the
Court vacated its February 3, 2020 order certifying a class under
Rule 23(b)(3) 71. The Court directed the Clerk to enter judgment
and terminated the case.
Mack appealed. On appeal, she asserted that the district court
erred when it found that the time, effort, and out-of-pocket costs
expended in sending a second validation request were not adequate
to establish standing.
On June 7, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the dismissal of Mack's claims for lack of standing. The
Seventh Circuit also remanded the case for further proceedings.
On Mar. 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended motion to certify
class, which Judge Ellis denied on Sept. 23, 2024.
The appellate case is captioned Yvonne Mack v. Resurgent Capital
Services, L.P., et al., Case No. 24-8021, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 4, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner YVONNE MACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
David J. Philipps, Esq.
Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
9760 S. Roberts Road
Palos Hills, IL 60465
Telephone: (708) 974-2900
Defendants-Respondents RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., et al. are
represented by:
Katherine M. Saldanha Olson, Esq.
MESSER STRICKLER BURNETTE, LTD.
142 W. Station Street
Barrington, IL 60010
Telephone: (312) 334-3444
ROAD HAULAGE: Court of Appeal Allows UK Class Action to Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeal has upheld the Competition Appeal Tribunal's
(CAT) opt-in collective proceedings order (CPO) in a trucks cartel
UK class action. The CAT appointed the Road Haulage Association
(RHA) as the representative of a class comprising UK buyers of new
and used trucks. The RHA is seeking compensation for increased
prices that those class members allegedly paid as a result of truck
manufacturers' unlawful price co-ordination.
In its first instance decision, the CAT favoured the RHA's CPO
application over a rival one brought by UK Trucks Claim (UKTC). The
key reasons why the CAT chose the RHA were:
-- the RHA's proposed class members included purchasers of used
and new trucks;
-- the RHA wished to bring proceedings on an opt-in basis. That
meant that it would have access to class members' data, which would
strengthen its claim. In contrast, the UKTC proposed that the claim
proceed on an opt-out basis; and
-- the methodology that the RHA put forward for calculating loss
was more conventional and well established than the UKTC's novel
methodology.
Issues on appeal
The main issue on appeal was whether the CAT was wrong to certify
the RHA as the representative of both new and used truck buyers.
The UKTC and two of the truck manufacturers argued that there was a
conflict of interest between those two sub-classes, which meant
that the CAT had erred in its appointment.
The Court of Appeal held that while conflict of interest existed,
it could be managed through information barriers and separate
funders and representation (including solicitors, counsel and
experts). Accordingly, the RHA was allowed to continue as the sole
class representative.
The Court of Appeal also dealt briefly with three more minor
matters.
First, the UKTC sought to challenge the CAT's preference of the
RHA's opt-in proceedings over its own opt-out CPO application. The
court said that all of UKTC's arguments sought to challenge the
CAT's decisions on matters that were "quintessentially
multifactorial assessments by a specialist tribunal with which this
Court would not interfere unless there were an error of law". As
such, the UKTC was refused permission to appeal on this point.
The UKTC also wanted to argue that the CAT should have stayed,
rather than dismissed, its CPO application, but the court saw this
as a case management matter that the UKTC had failed to deal with
rather than a matter for appeal.
Two other truck manufacturers challenged the CAT's alternative
conclusions that the UKTC had brought a workable CPO application,
arguing that the UKTC had failed to come up with a methodology for
modelling truck buyers' pass-on to their customers. They also
submitted that the UKTC's novel methodology for establishing loss
was implausible. These were both moot points because the UKTC's
application had been unsuccessful. Nonetheless, the court confirmed
that the CAT had not made any error of law. In particular, the
court said that:
-- the CAT was entitled to certify an application that had not
grappled with downstream pass-on by the class because that was
something that the CAT could deal with through case management;
and
-- that the CAT's decision about the methodology's plausibility
was not an appropriate matter for appeal.
As a preliminary matter, the court also considered whether the
correct route for the challenge was by way of appeal or judicial
review. As in Evans, which was handed down at the same time, the
court decided that substantially all of the issues could proceed by
way of appeal because they concerned the CAT's refusal to certify
the UKTC's proceedings in whole or in part.
The RHA cannot stay (in) neutral
The conflict of interest between new and used truck purchasers
arose because one of the ways that the latter were said to have
suffered loss was because new truck purchasers would (on resale)
have sought to pass on the inflated costs of their trucks to used
truck buyers.
The CAT concluded that this could be managed by the RHA following
its economic expert's advice as to whether the overcharge had in
fact been passed on to used truck purchasers. The RHA would also
have to communicate to class members that this was what it was
going to do. Following that communication, the CAT said that class
members that opted in to the claim could be taken to have consented
to the RHA acting against their interests if so advised.
The UKTC and truck manufacturers claimed that this conflict of
interest meant that the RHA's appointment did not satisfy the
statutory test of being "just and reasonable". The truck
manufacturers also argued that the combined claim did not meet the
suitability and common issues requirements for certification as a
class action.
The Court of Appeal partially overruled the CAT on this point,
holding that case management steps were insufficient to manage
conflict between class members' interests. It said that the CAT's
solution was inappropriate because the expert's answer would be
highly sensitive to assumptions and data input.
However, the court did reject the UKTC's submission that two class
representatives would be needed to manage the conflict. This was a
"recipe for confusion and unnecessary expense", particularly where
one class representative was acting on an opt-out basis while the
other was acting on an opt-in basis. Instead, the conflict could be
managed by the RHA maintaining separate teams, divided by an
information barrier, for each sub-class of truck purchasers. In
doing so, the court confirmed that a class representative like the
RHA did need to act in class members' best interests where there
was an identifiable conflict (although it recognised that there
would be some situations where a class representative can act in
the majority's best interest without significantly harming the
minority).
The RHA would also need to appoint separate solicitors, counsel and
experts for each sub-class. The court also held that different
funders would need to finance the sub-classes because, for example,
of a funder's discretion to fund an appeal, which it may be
incentivised not to do where one sub-class had won on a point at
the other's expense (since the allocation of damages between the
sub-classes may be a zero-sum game from the funder's perspective).
Analysis
The Court of Appeal's decision shows that the opt-in regime lives
on, despite its parallel decision in Evans to overturn the CAT's
decision (which found the claim should be certified on an opt-in
basis only) to certify the FX class on an opt-out basis. The
parallel decisions suggest that an opt-in claim will be preferred
where the PCR can show it is practicable and viable to proceed on
an opt-in basis (17,500 class members had signed up or registered
an interest with the RHA before the CAT hearing), whereas an
opt-out claim will be preferred where an opt-in claim wouldn't be
viable (the PCRs in FX showed the claims would stall if made on an
opt-in basis).
The Court of Appeal's decision about how the RHA needs to manage
its conflict of interests sets out a more formal approach than the
CAT's and makes clear that this was a fundamental issue that needed
to be considered at the certification stage. However, the court's
solution, while pragmatic in allowing the RHA to continue its
claim, does raise further questions (and further costs). For
example, it is unclear how this approach will work for class
members that purchased both new and used trucks -- will they fall
into both sub-classes, or will there need to be an early
determination as to which sub-class is most suitable? What will
happen in other cases where a PCR seeks to include class members
from different levels of the supply chain but is unable to put
information barriers in place? Our prediction is that there is more
to come with regard to the question of conflicts.
The court's judgment also showed that it seeks to support the CAT's
authority by emphatically dismissing the parties' attempts to
challenge other discretionary and case management matters. The
court emphasised that these were not properly the subject of
appeals or judicial review and refused to grant permission for
appeals on these points.
This appears to reflect a view that CPO certification jurisprudence
is beginning to settle down. In light of its judgments in this case
and in Evans, the Court of Appeal has indicated that it hopes that
the CAT will be able to hold shorter hearings and produce shorter
rulings on such certifications in the future.
The road ahead for the RHA
In the present case, however, the Supreme Court's recent finding
that the RHA's litigation funding agreement needed to satisfy the
statutory requirements of a damages-based agreement means that the
class representative will need to restructure or comply with those
requirements before the case can move forward. With the possibility
of that outcome in mind, as well as the need for the RHA to make
arrangements to manage the conflict of interest between new and
used truck purchasers, the appellate courts seem to have put the
brakes on the proceedings for the time being.
ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE: Sued Over Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SILVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROADRUNNER TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED, LLC,
D/B/A A&A EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-03181-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.,
Oct. 10, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking
to recover from the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits,
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
Roadrunner Temperature Controlled, LLC, D/B/A A&A Express, Inc.
provides temperature controlled solutions for both large and small
customers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel H. Friedman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PC, LLO
PO Box 82009
Lincoln, NE 68501
Telephone: (402) 476-1093
Email: dfriedman@friedmanlaw.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
ROCKET COMPANIES: Shupe Seeks Leave to File Renewed Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL SHUPE and
CONSTRUCTION LABORERS PENSION TRUST FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY D. FARNER, DANIEL GILBERT, and ROCK
HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a renewed motion for class certification,
or in the alternative, granting limited motion for reconsideration
of the Court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, only as to portions of that opinion related to the
insider trading subclass.
The Plaintiffs propose a class definition of:
"all persons who purchased Rocket Class A Common Stock
following
Defendant RHI's Sale on March 29, 2021 through April 1, 2021,
Inclusive."
Rocket provides mortgage lending, title and settlement services,
and other financial technology services in the United States and
Canada.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O3z6x7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
Jake Bissell-Linsk, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
cfox@labaton.com
jbissell-linsk@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
- and -
Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: (203) 992-4523
E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
- and -
James Allen, Esq.
SCHENK & BRUETSCH PLC
West Fort Street, Suite 1410
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (313) 774-1000
E-mail: james.allen@sbdetroit.com
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Wins Summary Judgment v. Sargent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERICE SARGENT, et al.,
v. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-01509-CFK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Chad F. Kenney grants
the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Following discovery, the record has only confirmed that the changes
to the admissions process were race-blind—both in their
motivation, and in their application. Therefore, despite
Plaintiffs’ apparent pivot away from the Indicator, there is no
genuine dispute on either the discriminatory impact or purpose
prong. Accordingly, the changes are subject only to rational basis
review, and, under that test, the changes in the admissions process
pass constitutional muster. The Court will grant Defendants'
Motion.
In short, increasing access for all qualified children to some of
the City's best schools— regardless of where they live—is a
legitimate state interest, and the changes to the admissions plan
are rationally related to that interest. Therefore, the changes to
the admissions process have a rational basis and do not violate the
Equal Protection Clause.
The gravamen of Plaintiffs' complaint is that the School
District—along with the other named defendants in this case, all
of whom are either on the Board of Education for the School
District or are employed by the School District—specifically
revised the admissions process to give preference to students on
the basis of their race or on the basis of their residence in zip
codes that were selected because of their racial composition. S
The Plaintiffs are parents of students who participated in the 2022
Admissions Process and did not receive admission into their
preferred criteria-based school.
The School District includes all school district-operated public
schools in Philadelphia.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P1z8dl at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCHULTE HOSPITALITY: Martinez Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NORA BERENICE MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHULTE HOSPITALITY
GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
CU24-06337, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Solano, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on October 7, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02765-DJC-SCR to
the proceeding.
The complaint asserts eight causes of action: (1) failure to pay
minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3)
failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and
permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business
expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (7)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8)
engagement in unfair competition in violation of Business and
Professions Code.
Schulte Hospitality Group is a professional hotel management and
development company.[BN]
Defendant Schulte Hospitality Group, Inc. is represented by:
Matthew B. Golper, Esq.
David R. Comfort, Esq.
BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 508-3700
Facsimile: (818) 506-4827
E-mail: mgolper@brgslaw.com
dcomfort@brgslaw.com
SEYFARTH SHAW: Team Health Sues Over Breach of Duty, Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEAM HEALTH HOLDINGS, INC., TEAM HEALTH, LLC, AMERITEAM SERVICES,
LLC, and CHASE DENNIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL GROUP, INC., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24SMCV05091 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 16,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for professional
negligence, breach of written contract, breach of implied in fact
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendants' breach of their duty of care
to the Plaintiffs as their attorneys in connection with their
representation of the Plaintiffs in a labor complaint. The
Defendants breached their duty by, among other ways: incorrectly
sorting the March 17, 2022 Spreadsheet and creating an incorrect
spreadsheet; failing to communicate with Team Health regarding
Seyfarth's decision to sort the March 17, 2022 Spreadsheet and
creating an incorrect spreadsheet; and sending an incorrect
spreadsheet to the Settlement Administrator and doing so without
Team Health's approval. In reliance on Seyfarth's incorrect
spreadsheet, the Settlement Administrator distributed the $4.9
million that Team Health paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement
based on the incorrect spreadsheet. As a result of Seyfarth's
error, Team Health was forced to enter a supplemental settlement
agreement whereby Team Health paid an additional $3,638,106.08 to
the Omitted Class Members to resolve their claims in the underlying
case.
Team Health Inc. is a healthcare services company with its
principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Team Health, LLC is a healthcare services company with its
principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee.
AmeriTeam Services, LLC is a healthcare services company with its
principal place of business in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Chase Dennis Emergency Medical Group, Inc. is a provider of
emergency department services with its principal place of business
in Pleasanton, California.
Seyfarth is a law firm with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Manoah S. Marton, Esq.
Mark B. Wilson, Esq.
KLEIN & WILSON LLP
4770 Von Karman Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 631-3300
Facsimile: (949) 631-3703
Email: mmarton@kleinandwilson.com
wilson@kleinandwilson.com
SHEALA LLC: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHEALA LLC d/b/a Leela and Lavender,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03886 (D. Minn., Oct. 11, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.leelaandlavender.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.
SHEALA LLC d/b/a Leela and Lavender sells women's clothing, such as
sweaters, cardigans, blazers, and tops. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8 th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
SILVERLENS NY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hedges Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA HEDGES, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVERLENS NY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07693 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://silverlensgalleries.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
September 23, 2024, in an attempt to visit Defendant's gallery and
to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to
the goods and services offered to the public and made available to
the public. The Plaintiff was unable to find location and hours of
operation, locate pricing and was not able to add the items to the
cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and
other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
SILVERLENS NY LLC operates the Silverlens Galleries online retail
store and physical retail art gallery, as well as the Silverlens
Galleries interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates
in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SIX FLAGS: $40MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 28
--------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-00201-P
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND
(III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
common stock of Six Flags Entertainment Corporation ("Six Flags")
between April 24, 2018 and February 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")(1) :
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and additional Named
Plaintiff Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class,
and Defendants Six Flags, James Reid-Anderson, and Marshall Barber
(collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of
the Action for $40,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved,
the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on January 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Mark T. Pittman of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, in the Fourth Floor Courtroom
of the Eldon B. Mahon United States Courthouse, located at 501 W.
10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102-3673, for the following
purposes: (i) to determine whether the Settlement Class should be
certified for purposes of the Settlement; (ii) to determine whether
the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in
the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement
Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (iii) to
determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form attached as
Exhibit B to the Stipulation, should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice against Defendants and granting the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice);
(iv) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the
proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be
approved; (v) to determine whether the motion by Lead Counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses should be
approved; and (vi) to consider any other matters that may properly
be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and
Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice") and the
Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator by
mail at Six Flags Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91074, Seattle, WA 98111; by telephone at
1-877-753-9183; or by email at
info@SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or submitted online through the
Settlement website, www.SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later
than February 4, 2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share
in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than January 7, 2025,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are
received no later than January 7, 2025, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Six Flags, any
other Defendants in the Action, or their counsel regarding this
notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement,
or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be
directed the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Six Flags Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91074
Seattle, WA 98111
1-877-753-9183
info@SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Lead Counsel:
John Rizio-Hamilton
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44(th) Floor
New York, NY 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
By Order of the Court
(1) Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement
Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I)
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice"), available at
www.SixFlagsSecuritiesLitigation.com.
SIX-GS AUTOMOTIVE: Ureche Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Six-GS Automotive,
Inc. The case is styled as Oakes J. Ureche, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Six-GS Automotive, Inc.,
Groppetti LTD, INC., Case No. VCU314153 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare
Cty., Oct. 16, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Unlimited
Civil-Visalia."
Six-GS Automotive, Inc. specializes in rebuilding alternators and
starters in automotive, marine, agricultural, light/heavy
industrial, domestic and import.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Keledjian, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
880 E Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205-1218
Phone: 818-962-6465
Fax: 818-962-6469
Email: d.keledjian@d.law
SKIN SPA: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. The Skin Spa - Midtown, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07081 (E.D.N.Y., October 8, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, www.skinspanewyork.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Trippett has made an attempt to visit and use
Skinspanewyork.com. On July 29, 2024, he was looking for a local
spa and using the keywords "spas in NYC," he tried to find a place
offering a wide range of cosmetic procedures, specifically
intending to make a facial cleaning. Upon accessing the website,
the Plaintiff was disoriented by a pop-up window and when trying to
book a session for Power peel, he could not efficiently use the
session quantity, as the input field was not announced. These
access barriers have caused Skinspanewyork.com to be inaccessible
to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired
persons, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The
Skin Spa - Midtown's policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Skin Spa - Midtown operates the website that provides skincare
and wellness services, massages, laser hair removal, and advanced
skincare treatments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Leskovar Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLY LESKOVAR, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE., INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00167-BMM
(D. Mont., Oct. 16, 2024) alleges that the Defendant breached its
duty and, as a direct result, hundreds of millions of customers and
customers' sensitive information with which it was entrusted was
released, stolen, and made publicly available on the dark web.
On May 20, 2024, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. identified
unauthorized access of its data housed in Snowflake's systems. This
breach exposed the PII of over 560 million users of Ticketmaster, a
subsidiary of Live Nation. The stolen information reportedly
contained 1.3 terabytes of data, including customers' full details
such as names, home and email addresses, and phone numbers, as well
as ticket sales, order, and event information for 560 million
customers.
In or around the summer of 2024, the Plaintiff received a letter
from Ticketmaster informing Plaintiff that her personally
identifiable information (PII) had been compromised during the Data
Breach.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly
increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft,
misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their
privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may
last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, the Plaintiff and
Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and
energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these
crimes, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, and the Class, brings claims
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment,
seeking actual and putative damages, with attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses, and appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
Ms. Leskovar has been Ticketmaster's customer since at least 2014.
In connection with the registration of Plaintiff's account, the
Plaintiff was required to provide her PII to Ticketmaster in
exchange for its services.
Snowflake is a leading provider of cloud storage and AI-driven data
processing services to many of the largest corporations in the
world across a broad range of industries, including Adobe, AT&T,
Kraft Heinz, Mastercard, Micron, Capital One, Doordash, HP,
Nielsen, Novartis, Okta, PepsiCo, Siemens, Instacart, JetBlue,
Yamaha, US Foods, Western Union, Advance Auto Parts, Ticketmaster,
Santander Bank, Neiman Marcus, and NBC Universal.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Domenic A. Cossi, Esq.
Maxwell E. Kirchhoff, Esq.
Adam M. Shaw, Esq.
WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC
303 W Mendenhall, Suite 1
Bozeman, MT 59715
Telephone: (406) 587-1900
E-mail: domenic@westernjusticelaw.com
max@westernjusticelaw.com
adam@westernjusticelaw.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Nicholas R. Lange, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 234-6486
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
nlange@fklmlaw.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Jones Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Jones, and Kathy Martin, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05323 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana on Oct. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00151-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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Tiara Avaness, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malabu, CA 90265
Phone: (213) 788-4050
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
tavaness@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Phone: (206) 802-1272
Fax: (650) 697-0577
Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
jmacpherson@bholaw.com
- and -
William A. Rossbach, Esq.
ROSSBACH LAW, P.C.
401 North Washington Street
P.O. Box 8988
Missoula, MT 59807-8988
Phone: (406) 543-5156
Email: bill@rossbachlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen Andrew Broome, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 443-3285
Fax: (213) 443-3100
Email: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Kirby Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Kirby, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. SNOWFLAKE, INC. and AT&T INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01934 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. 16, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00160-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, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Phone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
The Defendants are 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
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file under seal:
A. Documents and testimony that have been designated as
Confidential pursuant to the Protective Order that the
Plaintiff intends to submit as part of the Class
Certification
Motion and brief; and
B. Those portions of Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion and
brief that reference documents and testimony that have been
designated as Confidential by Solstice.
The Plaintiff conferred with counsel for the Defendant, and
Defendant does not oppose this Motion.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Solstice submits that
this standard is satisfied here with respect to the documents and
testimony that Plaintiff intends to submit in connection with the
Class Certification Motion and brief, which are more fully
described in the Index of Documents Proposed for Sealing below. The
index includes all documents that Plaintiff currently intends to
file in connection with its motion and brief. Plaintiff reserves
the right to supplement this list and this Motion should further
documents be identified for inclusion in this seal request.
The documents and testimony that Plaintiff intends to submit as
part of and reference in its anticipated filings have been
designated Confidential by Solstice because they contain personal
identifiable information of members of the putative class, as well
as competitively sensitive and proprietary business information
regarding Solstice’s operations and practices.
The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Solstice submits the
information it designated as Confidential is not relevant or
important to public health and safety, is not necessary to promote
fairness and efficiency, and is not important to the public.
Rather, it constitutes confidential and commercially sensitive
information, the disclosure of which could work a serious injury to
Solstice, and also Plaintiff and the members of the putative class,
that outweighs the public's common law right of access to these
judicial records.
Solstice is a dental and vision insurance company providing
benefits to members, groups, and individuals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4cNgyP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Barry J. Blonien, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
- and -
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
SOLSTICE BENEFITS: Lyngaas Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SOLSTICE BENEFITS, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-10830-LVP-CI
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying a class, and appointing the Plaintiff as its
representative and Plaintiff's attorneys, Bock Hatch & Oppenheim,
LLC and Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, as class counsel, because the
requirements of Rule 23(a), (b)(3), and (g) are satisfied.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Plaintiff seeks certification of a class and proposes the following
class definition:
"All persons and entities: (1) sent a one-page announcement to
their fax number on April 23 or April 24, 2018, stating,
"Solstice
is happy to announce that The National Association for Medical
and
Dental, Inc./Healthcare National Marketing, Inc. has selected us
as
their carrier," "This group has over 25,000 members," and "We
look
forward to continuing to promote your practice through our
growing
membership base!"; (2) whose fax number was included on a
provider
list Solstice obtained through a network agreement with United
Concordia Companies, Inc. or GEHA, Inc.; and (3) regarding which
Solstice has produced no evidence of contact prior to April 23,
2018."
The Plaintiff is the dental practice of Brian J. Lyngaas, D.D.S.
based in Livonia, Michigan. The Plaintiff has never done any
business with Solstice and never signed up with Solstice.
Solstice is a dental and vision insurance company providing
benefits to members, groups, and individuals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 14, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wswr2X at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
Barry J. Blonien, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
BOCK HATCH & OPPENHEIM, LLC
203 N. La Salle St., Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: service@classlawyers.com
- and -
Richard Shenkan, Esq.
SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC
6550 Lakeshore Street
West Bloomfield, MI 48323
Telephone: (248) 562-1320
E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com
SPIRE GLOBAL: Faces New Securities Class Action Suit in E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman announces that the firm has filed a new class action
lawsuit against Spire Global, Inc. (NYSE: SPIR) and certain of its
senior executives.
The new complaint extends the alleged fraudulent period in the
pending litigation against Spire Global, contending that Spire's
stock was artificially inflated by Defendants' alleged fraud from
May 11, 2022 through Aug. 27, 2024, inclusive ("Extended Class
Period").
Lead plaintiff motions for the Spire class action litigation must
still be filed with the Court no later than October 21, 2024.
Hagens Berman therefore urges investors who suffered substantial
losses on purchases of Spire securities during the Extended Class
Period and who wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Spire
litigation to submit your losses now.
Extended Alleged Class Period: May 11, 2022-Aug. 27, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 21, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SPIR
Contact the Firm Now: SPIR@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895
Hagens Berman's New Securities Fraud Class Action Alleging Extended
Class Period:
The new class action, filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, and captioned Tagawa v. Spire
Global, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01810, seeks to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
The new class action is related to pending securities class action
litigation against Spire in the Eastern District of Virginia,
Bousso v. Spire Global, Inc., 1:24-cv-01458 (MSN/WEF), which
alleges a class period of Mar. 6, 2024 through Aug. 14, 2024,
inclusive.
The new class action, however, alleges a broader class period, as
the new case is brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Spire securities during the Extended Class
Period -- between May 11, 2022 and Aug. 27, 2024, inclusive.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Spire shares during the
Extended Class Period, you have until October 21, 2024, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class in the Spire
litigation. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained here. Click
here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The new Spire class action lawsuit alleges that
defendants throughout the Extended Class Period made materially
false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants
failed to disclose to investors that, since Spire's quarter ended
March 31, 2022, the Company: (1) filed financial statements that
were not prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles including, without limitation, principles applicable to
proper revenue recognition; (2) filed Sarbanes-Oxley certifications
falsely claiming that: (a) Spire's financial statements did not
contain untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state
material facts necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the periods covered its financial
reports; and (b) had disclosure controls and procedures and
internal control over financial reporting that did not provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of its financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes; (3) faced the likelihood of having to restate its
financial statements to remove certain previously recorded
pre-space mission activity revenue from the period in which
pre-space mission activities were performed under certain
contracts, and instead, record that revenue over the period in
which data is delivered; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 14, 2024, after the market closed, the Company announced
it would be unable to timely file its second quarter 2024 financial
report as the Company was "reviewing its accounting practices and
procedures with respect to revenue recognition" regarding certain
Space Services contracts and "related internal control matters."
The Company disclosed the "type of Contracts that the Company has
identified for re-evaluation resulted in recognized revenue of $10
to $15 million on an annual basis" and "additional financial
measures such as gross profit could also be impacted."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.41 or 33.56%, to
close at $6.75 per share on August 15, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
Then, after the market closed on August 27, 2024, the Company
announced that investors should no longer rely on its previously
issued financial statements beginning with its financial statements
for the quarter ended March 31, 2022, originally released on May
11, 2022. The Company revealed the need to restate its financial
statements as of and for (a) the quarters and nine months ended
September 30, 2022 and 2023, (b) the quarters and six months ended
June 30, 2022 and 2023, (c) the quarters ended March 31, 2022,
2023, and 2024, and (d) the years ended December 31, 2022 and 2023.
The Company said that it needed "to remove certain pre-space
mission activity revenue," and "record that revenue over the period
in which data is delivered."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.12 or about 2%.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Spire securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff of the Spireclass action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Spireclass action lawsuit.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate
the Spire class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff of the Spire class action lawsuit. Lead plaintiff motions
for the pending Spire class action litigation must be filed with
the Court no later than October 21, 2024.
If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked
questions about the Spire Global case and our investigation, read
more »
Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Spire
Global should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email SPIR@hbsslaw.com.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw. [GN]
STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL JENKINS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
STEELSCAPE WASHINGTON LLC, a Washington limited liability company,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05127-TMC (W.D. Wash.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for
class certification by five months, from Nov. 8, 2024 to April 8,
2025.
The parties stipulate and agree that good cause supports their
request given the time and resources expended to engage in a
negotiated settlement.
The parties stipulate and agree as follows: This is a putative wage
and hour class action. Five months ago, in May of this year, the
parties agreed to attempt early mediation. Over the course of the
next several months, counsel and the parties focused their time and
resources preparing for mediation, including by exchanging
class-wide payroll and timekeeping data and engaging experts to
conduct damages analyses. So as not to waste the parties’ and the
Court’s time in the event a settlement was reached, counsel
agreed to defer certain discovery (e.g., depositions) and
discovery-related motions practice until after mediation.
On October 1, the parties attended mediation, but could not reach a
negotiated resolution. Just days after the mediation, counsel met
and conferred about the case schedule and the status of discovery.
During the conference, counsel agreed that the current deadline of
November 8, 2024 for Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class
certification does not allow sufficient time to supplement pending
discovery requests and conduct the additional discovery necessary
to prepare for class certification briefing.
Steelscape is a national supplier of metallic-coated and
pre-painted steel.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3rm5j at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lindsay L. Halm, Esq.
Adam J. Berger, Esq.
Andrew D. Boes, Esq.
SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER
401 Union Street, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 622-8000
E-mail: halm@sgb-law.com
berger@sgb-law.com
boes@sgb-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98104-1158
Telephone: (206) 623-7580
E-mail: todd.nunn@klgates.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Allowed Leave to File Sur-reply
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order granting Takeda's motion for leave to file
a sur-reply regarding Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs') motion
for class certification and directing DPPs' opposition.
-- The court believes that further briefing may be helpful, and
therefore, grants leave.
-- Takeda may file a sur-reply, not to exceed 7 pages, by Oct. 22,
2024.
-- DPPs may file a sur-sur-reply, not to exceed 7 pages, by Oct.
29,
2024.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file a sur-reply in support of Takeda's opposition to the Direct
Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' ("DPPs") motion for class
certification, within ten (10) days of the Court's ruling on this
Motion.
Takeda seeks to respond to several issues first raised by DPPs in
their Reply in Support of the Motion, and to account for new
information Takeda received after it had filed its opposition to
the Motion.
Those issues include: (i) the DPPs' attempt to amend the class
definition for the first time in their Reply; (ii) DPPs' arguments
for the inclusion of generic-only purchasers in the proposed class;
(iii) DPPs’ arguments for the inclusion of brand-only purchasers
in the proposed class; (iv) testimony by DPPs' expert Dr. Conti
offered on Oct. 8, 2024; and (v) CVS' confirmation that it intends
to opt out of the proposed class, which CVS confirmed just days
ago. Takeda believes its sur-reply addressing these issues will
assist the Court.
In their Reply, DPPs raise several new argument or issues that
Takeda was not given an opportunity to address in its Opposition,
including a change to the proposed class definition to include
purchasers from Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. ("DRL") and Sun, and
new arguments DPPs make to purportedly justify the inclusion of
generic-only and brand-only purchasers in the class in direct
contravention of Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick. Given the
importance of these issues, Takeda should be permitted the
opportunity to respond.
In addition to the new issues raised in DPPs' reply, Takeda has
received new information through discovery that was only made
available after Takeda submitted its Opposition. On October 8,
2024, counsel for Takeda deposed DPPs' expert, Dr. Rena Conti. Dr.
Conti submitted the expert reports that provide the core
evidentiary support for DPPs' motion for class certification.
During her deposition three days ago, Dr. Conti changed her
position and refused to answer questions on several topics,
including antitrust injury, damages, and the class definition, that
go the core of some of the opinions she offers in her expert report
regarding DPPs' proposed class. Dr. Conti also testified that
injury is an individualized matter, which is in direct opposition
to the arguments raised by DPPs in their Reply. Reply at 17-18. On
the same day, counsel for CVS confirmed that it intends to opt out
of DPP class, should it be certified. These developments, unknown
to Takeda at the time it filed its Opposition, also merit granting
Takeda's request for leave to file a sur-reply.
DPPs have agreed to the need for supplemental briefing to address
the class definition and CVS issues, but the parties have not been
able to reach agreement regarding page limits or the need for
supplemental briefing for the remaining issues.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DtRJ3G at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
TARGET CORP: Twal Balks at Mislabeled Simethicone Softgels
----------------------------------------------------------
Victor Twal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-07685 (S.D.N.Y., October 9, 2024) is an action seeking to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of the
Defendant regarding the sale of Up & Up Maximum Strength Gas Relief
Simethicone Softgels 250mg product throughout the state of New York
and the U.S.
The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the product
using a marketing and advertising campaign that represents that the
product is "maximum strength." A reasonable consumer, like
Plaintiff, would conclude that a Simethicone product labeled as
"maximum strength" would contain the maximum amount of Simethicone
available in pill form. However, Defendant's claims,
representations, and warranties are false and misleading because
Simethicone is available in other over-the-counter products at
doses higher than 250mg, including up to 500mg, says the suit.
The Defendant's conduct violated and continues to violate, inter
alia, New York General Business Law, and the express warranty laws
of New York and other states around the country. The Defendant also
breached and continues to breach its warranties regarding the
product, the suit alleges.
Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Philip Furia, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
THOMSON REUTERS: Class Settlement in Brooks Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED
SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No.
3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered
an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement.
-- Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court
preliminarily certifies, for settlement purposes only, the
Settlement Class defined as follows:
"All persons who, during the Class Period, both resided in the
state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made
available for sale through CLEAR."
-- The Class Period is defined by the Settlement as Dec. 3, 2016,
through the date that is 36 days before the Response Deadline
for
class members to submit claims for monetary relief, opt-out of
the
settlement, or comment on the settlement.
-- The Court appoints as Class Representatives: Cat Brooks and
Rasheed Shabazz.
-- The Court appoints as Class Counsel: Andre M. Mura of Gibbs Law
Group LLP, and Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC.
Thomson Reuters is a Canadian multinational information
conglomerate.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rTI534 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TICKETMASTER LLC: Yarbough Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Yarbough, Patricia Marshall,
Elizabeth Quinby, on behalf of themselves and all others who are
similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc., Snowflake Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-06604 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 17,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00146-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Federal Trade
Commission Act.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kyle N. Gurwell, Esq.
360 Consumer Law
7755 Center Avenue, Suite 1100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Phone: (562) 600-9989
Email: kng@lawofficekg.com
- and -
Siobhan Ellen McGreal, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS
1600 Market Street Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 679-7058
Fax: (215) 940-8000
Email: smcgreal@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Daniel Scott Carlton, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
515 S. Flower Street, Ste 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 683-6113
Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
- and -
James Pearl, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 620-5700
Fax: (310) 620-5891
Email: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
- and -
Raymond Stockstill, IV, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
695 Town Center Drive, Ste. 17th Floor
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924
Phone: (714) 668-6204
Fax: (714) 979-1921
Email: beaustockstill@paulhastings.com
- and -
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 443-3000
Fax: (213) 443-3100
Email: stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
TIKTOK INC: Griffith Suit Seeks to Seal Class Cert Materials
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. TIKTOK, INC., a corporation; BYTEDANCE, INC., a corporation,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting motion sealing materials that are
filed in connection with their reply in support of motion for
reconsideration of the order denying motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs also seek to file partially under seal the following
documents, insofar as they contain references to material contained
in the sealed exhibits and other material that both Plaintiffs and
Defendants have designated CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEYS' EYES
ONLY.
By making this application, Plaintiffs do not agree that any of the
sealed material or the documents referencing sealed materials
designated solely by Defendants should be maintained under seal.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b), the burden is on Defendants to
file a declaration to establish that all or part of
Defendants-designated material is sealable.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court enter the concurrently filed
[Proposed] Order permitting Plaintiffs to file the above-referenced
documents under seal
TikTok is a short-form video hosting service owned by Chinese
internet company ByteDance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JCqqN4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ekwan E. Rhow, Esq.
Marc E. Masters, Esq.
Christopher J. Lee, Esq.
BIRD, MARELLA, RHOW,
LINCENBERG, DROOKS & NESSIM,
LLP
1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-2100
E-mail: erhow@birdmarella.com
mmasters@birdmarella.com
clee@birdmarella.com
- and -
Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2561
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: jrotter@glancylaw.com
kwolke@glancylaw.com
glinkh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Y. Gloria Park, Esq.
John W. McCauley, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
gpark@susmangodfrey.com
jmccauley@susmangodfrey.com
TIMOTHY WARD: Judge Recommends Partial OK of Time Extension
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN M FOSTER, v.
COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C. WARD, et al., Case No.
5:23-cv-00143-TES-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Charles Weigle
recommends that the Plaintiff's request for extension be granted in
part and be denied in part to the extent that he seeks injunctive
relief or to certify this case as a class action.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for extension of
time, in which the Plaintiff requests several forms of relief. He
primarily requests an extension of time to object or respond to a
Court order entered on Sept. 16, 2024. The Plaintiff's request for
extension of time to object is granted in part and his objection is
due on Nov. 8, 2024.
As to Plaintiff's request that this case be considered for
class-certification, it is well-settled that a pro se prisoner, who
is unskilled in the law, cannot serve as an adequate class
representative.
A copy of the Court's order and recommendation dated Oct. 15, 2024,
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=61O0S0 at no extra charge.[CC]
TOM VILSACK: Chen Seeks Leave to File Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chen, et al., v. Vilsack,
et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01440-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to file their motion for class certification, with a joint
briefing schedule to be submitted within one week of the Court's
order.
The Plaintiffs, Haiyan Chen, Kenya Watson, Gertrude Cribbs, Hana
Broome, S.O., and Mei Ieng Lee, submit this letter seeking leave to
file their motion for class certification pursuant to this
Court’s orders dated May 26, 2023 and September 27, 2024.
As outlined below and as will be addressed in detail in the
upcoming motion to certify class should leave be granted, the
Proposed Class satisfies all of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
Rule 23(b)(2). This Court should therefore grant Plaintiffs leave
to file their motion for class certification.
The Defendants take no position on Plaintiffs' request at this
time. Plaintiffs commenced this action on February 22, 2023,
alleging that Defendants, Tom Vilsack and Cindy Long (now Dr.
Tameka Owens) in their respective official capacities at the United
States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") and the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service, violated the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), by adopting policies and regulations that do not authorize
States to reimburse victims of skimming, in direct contravention of
7 U.S.C. section 2016(h)(7).
The Plaintiffs represent a proposed class of:
"all New York State residents who lost Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits as a result of an
electronic
form of theft known as "skimming," and who have not had the
full
value of their stolen benefits replaced."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zEtUh5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mary Eaton, Esq.
Maria Slobodchikova, Esq.
FRESHFIELDS US LLP
3 World Trade Center
175 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 277-4000
E-mail: mary.eaton@freshfields.com
maria.slobodchikova@freshfields.com
- and -
Edward Josephson, Esq.
Alex MacDougall, Esq.
Susan Welber, Esq.
THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
199 Water Street, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 577-3300
E-mail: ejosephson@legal-aid.org
amacdougall@legal-aid.org
sewelber@legal-aid.org
TOYOTA OF DALLAS: Class Certification Discovery Due April 14, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rhonn Mitchell, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Toyota of Dallas,
Case No. 3:23-cv-01278-N (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Godbey
entered an order granting the parties' third joint motion to modify
class certification scheduling order as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 23, 2024
Defendant's Designation of Expert Witnesses Dec. 16, 2024
and Production of Expert Reports:
Plaintiff's Designation of Rebuttal Experts March 11, 2025
and Production of Expert Rebuttal Reports:
Close of Class Certification Discovery: April 14, 2025
Defendant's Service of its Response to May 16, 2025
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification:
Plaintiff's Service of his Reply to June 6, 2025
Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification:
The Defendant is a premier Toyota dealership in Dallas, Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WECx7h at no extra
charge.[CC]
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Szymakowski Alleges Discriminatory Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY SZYMAKOWSKI, an individual, on behalf of himself and a
proposed class of similarly situated F-1 students, Plaintiff v.
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, INC.; ROBERT CUFF, an
individual; MARILYN RICHARDS, an individual; AMBER SHILL, an
individual; BURKE STAHELI, an individual; DAVID WARREN, an
individual; DAVID LUND, an individual; ZACK MCKEE, an individual;
PAUL SWEAT, an individual; LUKE RASMUSSEN, an individual; JERRE
HOLMES, an individual; JASON SMITH, an individual; MIKE MEES, an
individual; DEVIN SMITH, an individual, BRYAN DURST, an individual;
PATRICK LAMBERT, an individual; and BRENT STRATE, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00751 (D. Utah, October 7, 2024)
arises from the unjust and discriminatory actions taken by the Utah
High School Activities Association, Inc. which have adversely
impacted the Plaintiff, an international student-athlete, and other
foreign students.
The Plaintiff is a high school student living in Utah and legally
attending a Utah high school on an F-1 visa who files this action
individually and on behalf all similarly situated students. Due to
the UHSAA's recently implemented rule that prohibits foreign
students on F-1 visas from participating in varsity-level athletics
without severe restrictions, he has been unlawfully barred from
playing for his school's varsity football team this fall 2024
season, the Plaintiff says.
The suit seeks redress for these violations, emphasizing the
importance of equal treatment for all students regardless of their
national origin or alienage, and advocating for the integrity of
high school athletics as a platform for inclusivity and
opportunity.
Utah High School Activities Association, Inc. is a domestic
nonprofit corporation doing business in the State of Utah. The
UHSAA falls within the purview of the Government Records Access
Management Act and, on information and belief, receives federal
funds through the collection of annual dues from its 159 member
schools and/or through the programs it administers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Jordan, Esq.
Wesley F. Harward, Esq.
Tanner B. Camp, Esq.
Tyler A. Dever, Esq.
Charles D. Morris, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 401-8900
Facsimile: (385) 799-7576
E-mail: djordan@foley.com
wharward@foley.com
tcamp@foley.com
tdever@foley.com
charlie.morris@foley.com
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Must File Class Cert Responses in Lavin by Nov. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lavin v. Virgin Galactic
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May
28, 2021), the Hon. Judge Allyne R. Ross entered an order setting
the following deadlines by which the parties are ordered to brief
the motion:
-- The Defendants' Responses are due by: Nov. 12,
2024
-- Plaintiffs' Replies are due by: Dec. 3, 2024
-- Motion Ripe Deadline set for: Dec. 3, 2024.
O
The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act.
Virgin Galactic is a British-American spaceflight company founded
by Richard Branson and the Virgin Group conglomerate which retains
an 11.9% stake through Virgin Investments Limited.[CC]
WAIAKEA BOTTLING: Ortega Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waiakea Bottling Inc.
The case is styled as Monya Ortega, Jon Evan Johnson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Waiakea Bottling,
Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00676-GAF (W.D. Mo., Oct. 17, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Waiakea Bottling Inc. -- https://waiakea.com/ -- provide healthy,
delicious, Hawaiian volcanic water to people throughout the world
with as little impact as possible.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David B. Helms, Esq.
8000 Maryland Avenue, Suite 1060
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 504-4166
Fax: (816) 471-2221
Email: davidh@gmlawpc.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Mooneyham, Esq.
1201 Walnut St., 20th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 471-7700
Fax: (816) 471-2221
Email: benm@gmlawpc.com
WATSON CLINIC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Thorpe Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID THORPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATSON CLINIC LLP, Defendant, Case No.
8:24-cv-02359 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2024) is an action against the
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its customers.
According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of
the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect
consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a
foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
Watson Clinic LLP provides comprehensive healthcare and medical
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Wirehouses' "Massive Revenue"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley are facing separate
class action complaints accusing the wirehouses of generating
"massive revenue" to the detriment of clients through their cash
sweep programs.
The three suits, which mirror similar class action complaints filed
against numerous firms over the past several months, come after
Wells Fargo revealed that it lost $128 million in net interest
income during 2024's third quarter after it increased its sweep
deposit rates.
In a third-quarter earnings call October 11, Friday, Wells Fargo
Chief Financial Officer Michael Santomassimo said the firm's net
interest income dipped $233 million (or 2%) between the second and
third quarters. According to Santomassimo, $128 million of that
drop was due to "the increased pricing on sweep deposits and
advisory brokerage accounts and wealth and investment management."
Santomassimo also said sweep deposit pricing and advisory brokerage
accounts would continue to align with Fed rate cuts. Wells' revenue
in its wealth and investment management division increased 5%
year-over-year due to higher asset-based fees driven by market
valuations and transaction activity, despite the net interest
income dip from sweep deposit rate increases (down 16% YoY for the
division).
Meanwhile, the Minneapolis-based Safron Capital Corporation brought
separate suits against Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Morgan
Stanley, while Brickman Investments sued Wells Fargo. The
complaints were brought in New York's Southern District, with
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Abraham Fruchter & Twersky listed
as the plaintiffs' firms in all three suits.
In the Wells Fargo complaint (similar in content and language to
the other two), the plaintiffs described how the firm would
automatically sweep eligible clients' uninvested cash balances into
"interest-bearing" deposit accounts.
However, Wells faced a conflict of interest by profiting from the
spread its affiliated banks earned on those deposits. According to
the complaint, they were motivated to enroll clients in the sweep
programs even if those sweep accounts paid lower interest rates to
customers. The plaintiffs alleged the sweep program rates ranged
from 0.02% to 0.2%, lower than many competitors' rates and the
Fed's benchmark federal funds rate.
Last September, Wells Fargo revealed that the SEC was investigating
its sweep practices. In August, the firm disclosed it was in
"resolution discussions" with the commission. The firm also
announced late in the second quarter that it would increase pricing
on sweep deposits in advisory brokerage accounts, which they
expected could lead to an annual $350 million revenue loss.
In the suit, the plaintiffs argued Wells Fargo Advisors' conduct
violated fiduciary duties while also owing clients a comparable
duty of care to retail clients via the SEC's Regulation Best
Interest rule.
According to the complaint, Wells made misleading statements when
telling clients that rates may be lower than rates for clients
making deposits directly. In reality, the sweep program interest
rates were always significantly lower than those of customers
making direct deposits (the complaint alleged that Wells Fargo
amended its disclosure documents around the time it revealed the
SEC investigation to say sweep rates were "typically" lower).
In each suit, the plaintiffs want class action complaints to
represent the clients affected by each firm's alleged conduct.
Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and others, including LPL, Raymond
James, Ameriprise and UBS, have all been named defendants in
previously filed class action complaints. Also last Friday, a
California federal judge ordered a class action suit filed in the
state against Wells Fargo to be consolidated with several similar
suits also filed in recent months.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch disclosed in SEC filings that it
could face legal and regulatory risks due to its cash sweep
program. In August, Morgan Stanley disclosed it faced its own SEC
probe related to "advisory cash balances swept to affiliate bank
deposit programs."
Merrill Lynch declined to comment, and Wells Fargo did not return a
request for comment as of press time.
Morgan Stanley believed claims in the suit were "baseless and
plainly without merit," according to a spokesperson for the firm.
"The cash sweep program is fully disclosed to clients, who consent
to it in connection with the opening of their account," the
spokesperson said. "The firm will defend itself against this and
the other claims vigorously." [GN]
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Hearing in Klare 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 Hon.
Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order granting the Parties' joint
stipulation and application for continuance of the Nov. 7, 2024,
and hearing on the motion for class certification to Dec. 12,
2024.
The Court understands the unavoidable scheduling conflicts of
counsel for each of the Parties, and finds good cause exists to
grant the relief requested.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be
set for hearing on Thursday, Dec. 12, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
Westlake Services offers auto finance, equity loans, and other
financial products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 15, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v0dizV at no extra
charge.[CC]
WORKFORCE 7: Class Cert. Discovery in Ballast Suit Due Dec. 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR BALLAST, LUIS
SIMONE, RICHARD WALKER and ORLANDO OBRET, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. WORKFORCE 7 INC.,
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY of NEW YORK, INC., VALI INDUSTRIES,
INC. and RONALD HILTON, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered a
revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order:
-- Non-expert discovery, except with respect Dec. 9, 2024
to Count 10, shall be completed by:
-- Expert reports regarding claims other than Feb. 24, 2024
Count 10 shall be served no later than:
-- Rebuttal expert reports regarding claims March 26, 2025
other than Count 10 shall be served no
later than:
-- Expert witness depositions regarding claims May 12, 2025
other than Count 10 shall be completed by
no later than:
Workforce7 Inc. is a provider of professional flagging services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FF7u24 at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***