/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241029.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, October 29, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 217
Headlines
3091 REALTY: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Hernandez Suit
3M COMPANY: Benton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Dillon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Loses Bid to Strike Myrick Class Cert Motion
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Expert Discovery in Connelly Due Nov. 1
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI: Smith Files Suit in N.D. New York
ASCEND FINANCE: Gillen Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
ATRIUM HEALTH: Uriel Pharmacy Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
AWAKE STORE LLC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BALTIMORE POLICE: Conditional Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
BEIERSDORF INC: Case Management Scheduling Order Entered
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Seeks to Exclude Experts as Unqualified
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Bid Filing
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
CHX TX INC: Essainor Files FLSA Suit in D. Maryland
DELTONA, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry "Odometer Mileage" Suit Seeks Class Status
DRIVETIME CAR SALES: Simpson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FRESHPET INC: Gibbons Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
HOME DEPOT U.S.A.: Timmins Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
KERBER ECK & BRAECKEL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
LOOKS GREAT SERVICES: Frazier Sues Over Unpaid Prevailing Wages
MDL 2924: Transfer of Valisure Suit to S.D. Fla. Denied
MDL 3026: Hobson Suit Transfer Order Vacated
MDL 3080: Sistema Intergrado Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
MDL 3096: O'Neill v. Perry Johnson Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
MDL 3108: Lemke Case Consolidated in Change Data Breach Litigation
PRIME MARKETING SOURCE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Albany Condominium Sues Over Deceptive Charges
RTX CORPORATION: Goldstein Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
SEPHORA USA: Camp Suit Removed to N.D. California
TIVITY HEALTH: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Dec. 2
TREE HOUSE DISPENSARY: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
VISA INC: Old Jericho Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit
WEED SHOPPE INC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
*********
3091 REALTY: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Hernandez Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE HERNANDEZ, v. 3091
REALTY LLC. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00359-VSB-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Gabriel Gorenstein entered a scheduling and discovery
order as follows:
-- All applications must comply with this Court's Individual
Practices, which are available through the Clerk’s Office or
at:
https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-gabriel-w-gorenstein
-- Any application for an extension of the time limitations with
respect to any deadlines in this matter must be made as soon as
the cause for the extension becomes known to the party making
the
application and must be made in accordance with section 1.E of
the
Court's Individual Practices.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=svGAGA at no extra
charge.[CC]
3M COMPANY: Benton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
James Benton, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05517-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 21, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- 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: Dillon Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Dillon, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:24-cv-05977-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 21, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of
Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further
seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from
the same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
liver cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Phone: 631-600-0000
Facsimile: 631-543-5450
- 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
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Loses Bid to Strike Myrick Class Cert Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON MYRICK, v.
ADAPTHEALTH LLC and HOME MEDICAL EXPRESS, INC., Case No.
6:22-cv-00484-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jeremy Kernodle
entered an order denying the Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff
Myrick's motion for class certification.
The Court will consider the timeliness issue alongside the merits
of the class-certification question.
The Court lifts the stay on the briefing of the motion for class
certification and orders that the Defendants' response to the
motion for class certification is due by Nov. 1, 2024. All further
briefing shall comply with Local Rule CV-7.
AdaptHealth is a full-service home medical equipment and
respiratory company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kSxB2P at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Expert Discovery in Connelly Due Nov. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered a third amended scheduling
order:
-- All expert discovery in Phase (1) shall be completed no later
than Nov. 1, 2024.
-- Rebuttal expert affidavits in Phase (1), if any, are due by
Nov.
1, 2024.
-- Expert depositions in Phase (1), if any, shall be concluded
no
later than Nov. 1, 2024.
-- All motions for Pennsylvania state law class certification
and
motions for summary judgment on individuals shall be filed by
Nov. 15, 2024.
-- Responses shall be filed no later than Nov. 29, 2024. Motions
and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed in Judge
Gallagher's Policies and Procedures.
Amazon.com provides e-commerce services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ObS7mF at no extra
charge.[CC]
ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI: Smith Files Suit in N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony J. Annucci,
et al. The case is styled as Isaac J. Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthony J. Annucci,
Former Acting DOCCS Commissioner; Jeffrey McKoy, Deputy DOCCS
Commissioner; Jarrod Sanford, Associate Counsel; John/Jane Does
1-10; Case No. 9:24-cv-01289-LEK-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
Anthony J. Annucci was named the Acting Commissioner for the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision by
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Debra L. Greenberger, Esq.
Katherine R. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Vivake Prasad, Esq.
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF, ABADY, WARD & MAAZEL LLP
600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 763-5000
Email: dgreenberger@ecbawm.com
krosenfeld@ecbawm.com
vprasad@ecbawm.com
ASCEND FINANCE: Gillen Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM
M. GILLEN, P.C., on behalf of Plaintiff and a class, v. ASCEND
FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-00456-JL-AJ (D.N.H.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting him a 21 day
extension of time to file his reply in support of his motion for
class certification, or until Nov. 12, 2024, and allow him to
exceed the page limit by ten pages.
1. The Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class
certification is due on Oct. 22, 2024, pursuant to the local
rules which provide for seven days to file a reply brief.
2. The local rules also limit reply briefs to ten pages.
3. The Defendant's opposition to class certification is 28 pages
long and raises numerous complex arguments which cannot be
adequately addressed in only ten pages, and by the current
deadline.
Ascend Finance is a finance broking firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dEsK3u at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S. Clark St., Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60603-1841
Telephone: (312) 739-4200
Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James P. Harris, Esq.
SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS & GREEN PA
1000 Elm Street
Manchester, NH 03105-3701
Telephone: (603) 627-8152
E-mail: jharris@sheehan.com
jturner@sheehan.com
ATRIUM HEALTH: Uriel Pharmacy Suit Moved to W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan; Uriel
Pharmacy, Inc.; Hometown Pharmacy; and Hometown Pharmacy Health and
Welfare Benefits Plan, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs/Respondents v. ATRIUM HEALTH,
Movant, Case No. 2:22-cv-610-LA was moved from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
on Oct. 21, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-mc-00148-MOC-SCR.
Pursuant to Rules 26(c) and 45(d)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, d/b/a
Atrium Health ("Atrium Health") respectfully moves to quash the
subpoena issued to Atrium Health on March 22, 2024, in Uriel
Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc.,
Case No. 2:22-cv-610-LA (E.D. Wis.), or, in the alternative, for an
order enforcing the existing protective order related to the
requested documents..[BN]
The Movant is represented by:
Nathan C. Chase, Jr., Esq.
Caroline H. Reinwald, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Phone: (704) 377-2536
Facsimile: (704) 378-4000
Email: nchase@robinsonbradshaw.com
creinwald@robinsonbradshaw.com
AWAKE STORE LLC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AWAKE STORE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07992 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
21, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.awakeus.co and therefore its denial of the goods and services
offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The website www.awakeus.co
provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price
specials, employment opportunities and other programs offered by
AWAKE STORE LLC. Yet, www.awakeus.co contains thousands of access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Defendant excludes the blind from the full and equal
participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly
a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In
the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive
computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of
everyday life, allowing blind persons to fully and independently
access a variety of services.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
cannabis infused gummies on www.awakeus.co. However, unless
Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website,
Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse, use and complete a transaction on
www.awakeus.co. The Defendant's Website is not equally accessible
to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is
in violation of the ADA. 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, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
AWAKE STORE LLC is a New York Limited Liability company that owns
and maintains a physical dispensary and associated Website,
www.awakeus.co.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
BALTIMORE POLICE: Conditional Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES FENNER, et al., v.
BALTIMORE POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02714-JRR (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Julie Rubin entered an order:
-- denying without prejudice the motion for conditional class
Certification;
-- denying without prejudice the motion for appointment of
employment
lawyer;
-- denying as moot the motion to appoint forensic auditor; and
-- dismissing without prejudice the complaint.
The Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, initiated the present action against Defendants Baltimore
Police Department and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KvT6CU at no extra
charge.[CC]
BEIERSDORF INC: Case Management Scheduling Order Entered
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA SCHWARTZ, v.
BEIERSDORF, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-04394-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered a case management scheduling
order as follows:
Event Deadline
Parties to exchange initial disclosures: Oct. 24, 2024
Proposed stipulated protective order: Oct. 31, 2024
Last day to add parties or amend pleadings: Dec. 23, 2024
Plaintiff's motion for class certification 210 days from
and class certification expert reports: Defendant's answer
Defendant's opposition to motion for 30 days after
class certification and opposing class class
certification
certification expert reports, Daubert motion
motion(s):
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion 21 days after
for class certification and rebuttal class opposition
certification expert reports, Daubert
motions, and opposition(s) to Defendant's
Daubert motion(s):
Beiersdorf manufactures skin and beauty care products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gaLpMA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Seeks to Exclude Experts as Unqualified
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASMINE WILLIAMS, KHALIL
WHITE, JOSEPH NETT, LAKISHA SWIFT, CAMERON ROGERS and SHEPHERD YORK
in Their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a
Class of All Persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-08698-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants
will move the Court on Nov. 7, 2024, for an order granting their
motion to exclude Plaintiffs' Experts Christopher Landavazo and
Timothy Welbeck as Unqualified, or otherwise exclude their Opinions
and to exclude the Opinions of Plaintiffs' experts David Reynoso,
Gimel Rogers, and Charles Gallagher with respect to those opinions
set forth and relied upon in Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.
The Defendants reserve the right to further seek to exclude
plaintiffs' experts and/or opinions at the time of trial.
The Defendants include SANDRA SPAGNOLI, formerly sued as Doe 1;
DOMINICK RIVETTI formerly sued as DOE 2, CAPTAIN SCOTT DOWLING,
SERGEANT DALE DRUMMOND [FORMERLY D.D.], OFFICER JON ILUSORIO
[FORMERLY J.I.], OFFICER JONATHAN DE LA CRUZ [FORMERLY J.D.], SGT.
BILLY FAIR [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 3], OFFICER JAMES KRUG [FORMERLY
SUED AS DOE 4], OFFICER BILLY BLAIR [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 5].
OFFICER JERRY WHITTAKER [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 6], OFFICER JESSE
LYGA [FORMERLY SUED AS DOE 7], inclusive, all sued in their
individual and official capacities,
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4xmfvV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley C. Gage, Esq.
Milad Sadr. Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRAD GAGE
23002 Victory Boulevard
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 340-9252
Facsimile: (818) 340-9088
E-mail: bgage@bradgagelaw.com
msadr@bradgagelaw.com
Yanira@bradgagelaw.com
Gabriela@bradgagelaw.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Crump, Esq.
Elizabeth P. White, Esq.
Natalie A. Jackson, Esq.
Thurgood Wynn, Esq.
BEN CRUMP LAW PLLC
122 South Calhoun Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Telephone: (850) 224-2021
Facsimile: (800) 770-3444
E-mail: ben@bencrump.com
elizabethpaige@bencrump.com
natatlie@bencrump.com
thurgood@bencrump.com
ashley.r@bencrumplaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
2 Venture, Suite 220
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 240-8595
Facsimile: (949) 377-3272
E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net
- and -
B'Ivory LaMarr, Esq.
THE LAMARR FIRM, PLLC
5718 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: (800) 679-4600
Facsimile: (888) 742-6990
E-mail: blamarr@lamarrfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeanne L. Tollison, Esq.
WALSWORTH LLP
19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1150
Irvine, CA 92612-2445
Telephone: (714) 634-2522
Facsimile: (714) 634-0686
E-mail: jtollison@wfbm.com
- and -
Susan E. Sullivan, Esq.
Arthur J. Reliford, Esq.
Andrew A. Lothson, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
330 N. Wabash Ave., Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (312) 321-9100
E-mail: ssullivan@smbtrials.com
areliford@smbtrials.com
alothson@smbtrials.com
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert. Bid Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bryant et al., v. Buffalo
Exchange, LTD., Case No. 1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending deadlines relating motion
for class certification:
Event Current Proposed New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class Oct. 25, 2024 Nov. 22, 2024
Certification
Defendant's Opposition Nov. 26, 2024 Dec. 20, 2024
Plaintiffs' Reply Dec. 17, 2024 Jan. 14, 2025
Additionally, the parties propose that they will submit a joint
letter to the Court by Nov. 8, 2024, to update the Court on the
progress of the settlement negotiations and result of the mediation
session.
Buffalo is an American fashion resale retailer.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T6cLXw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
Amy Maurer, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
The Defendant is represented by:
Lawrence J. Del Rossi, Esq.
Andrew B. Murphy, Esq.
Kacie Phillips Tawfic, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
LLP
1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Fl.
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 248-3140
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Santiago Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NORMA I. SANTIAGO, on
behalf of herself and those similarly situated, v. CAVALRY
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC; CAVALRY SPV I, LLC; JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:15-cv-08332-MEF-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on Nov. 18, 2024, for an order certifying the case to
proceed as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.
Cavalry Portfolio is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P4P9Hq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
KIM LAW FIRM LLC
411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 273-7117
Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
- and -
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
1520 U.S. Highway 130 – Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Telephone: (732) 545-7900
Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
CHX TX INC: Essainor Files FLSA Suit in D. Maryland
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CHX TX, INC. The case
is styled as Emmanuel Afiri Essainor, and others similarly situated
v. CHX TX, INC. d/b/a YesCare, Case No. 1:24-cv-03063-ADC (D. Md.,
Oct. 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
CHX TX, INC. doing business as YesCare --
https://www.yescarecorp.com/ -- sets the standard for excellence in
correctional healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edith Thomas, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC
8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Fax: (240) 839-9142
Email: ethomas@zagfirm.com
DELTONA, FL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAMIAN ANSON, et al., v.
CITY OF DELTONA, a Florida Municipal corporation, Case No.
6:23-cv-00766-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of time to file its response
to plaintiffs' motion to certify a liability class, to Nov. 8,
2024, and an extension of time for plaintiffs to their reply to the
City's response, to Nov. 27, 2024
On Oct. 1, 2024, the plaintiffs filed their motion to certify.
Under the applicable case management order, the City's deadline to
respond to that motion is Oct. 20, 2024, and plaintiffs' deadline
to reply is Nov. 10, 2024.
Additionally, during the week of Oct. 7, Hurricane Milton struck
central Florida, effectively shutting down work activity for courts
and attorneys for several days.
To allow sufficient time for the City to file a considered response
to plaintiffs' Motion to Certify, the City seeks an extension to
November 8, 2024, and plaintiffs’ do not oppose this requested
extension.
Due to the ripple-effect of such extension, plaintiffs would
request an extension of their reply deadline, to November 27, 2024,
and the City does not oppose such extension.
Deltona is a city in Volusia County, Florida, United States.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AmCFwB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas C. Allison, Esq.
THOMAS C. ALLISON, P.A.
121 S. Orange Ave., Ste. 840N
Orlando, FL 32801-3233
E-mail: thomas@allisonpa.com
- and -
Andrew Bernard Doyle, Esq.
SEIBANE DOYLE, PLLC
913 Mabbette St.
Kissimmee, FL 34741
E-mail: andrew@sd-firm.com
micky@sd-firm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Dale A. Scott, Esq.
ROPER, TOWNSEND & SUTPHEN, P.A
255 S. Orange Ave., Ste. 750
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 897-5150
Facsimile: (407) 897-3332
E-mail: dscott@roperpa.com
ehemphill@roperpa.com
DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry "Odometer Mileage" Suit Seeks Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHYANN EMBRY, et. al.,
Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated, v.
DISCOUNT MOTORS, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-00078-HBB (W.D.
Ky.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting motion for class certification,
-- certify case as a class action,
-- appointing Sean A. McCarty and the law firm of Satterley &
Kelley,
PLLC, together with Rob Astorino Jr. and the law firm of Stein
Whatley Astorino as Class counsel, and
-- providing all other and further relief that the Court deems
equitable and just to conclude this matter.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following proposed Class:
"All individuals who purchased a vehicle from Discount Motors,
LLC
located in Owensboro, Kentucky from Jan. 1, 2019, to April 13,
2023, with a certificate of title which disclosed odometer
mileage
that was lower than the odometer mileage on that vehicle's
certificate of title when Discount Motors acquired it."
The following are expressly excluded from the Class:
(1) any Judge presiding over this action and members of their
immediate family;
(2) Discount Motors' subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which Discount Motors has a
controlling interest;
(3) All current and former employees, officers, and members of
Discount Motors LLC, its subsidiaries, parents, successors,
predecessors, and any entity in which it has a controlling
interest;
(4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally
adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released;
(5) Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for the Defendants; and
(6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any
such
excluded persons.
During the class period Discount Motors, LLC, through its agents
Don Adam and Eddie Howard, conspired to roll back the odometers on
hundreds of vehicles subsequently sold to the Plaintiffs and Class
members.
Discount Motors provides pre-owned cars, trucks, and SUVs.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WZOZDd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joseph D. Satterley, Esq.
Paul J. Kelley, Esq.
Paul J. Ivie, Esq.
Sean A. McCarty, Esq.
SATTERLEY & KELLEY, PLLC
8700 Westport Road, Suite 202
Louisville, KY 40242
Telephone: (502) 589-5600
Facsimile: (502) 814-5500
E-mail: jsatterley@satterleylaw.com
pkelley@satterleylaw.com
pivie@satterleylaw.com
smccarty@satterleylaw.com
- and -
Rob Astorino Jr.
STEIN WHATLEY ASTORINO, PLLC
2525 Bardstown Rd., Ste. 101
Louisville, KY 40205
Telephone: (502) 533-4750
Facsimile: (502) 459-2687
E-mail: rastorino@steinwhatley.com
DRIVETIME CAR SALES: Simpson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drivetime Car Sales
Company LLC. The case is styled as Tyler Simpson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Drivetime Car Sales
Company LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02839-KML (D. Ariz., Oct. 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. -- https://www.drivetime.com/ -- is
an American used car retailer and finance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 400-4713
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Miller Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Miller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01017 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://hawaiiantropic.com, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE BRANDS, LLC, operates the Hawaiian Tropic
online retail store, as well as the Hawaiian Tropic interactive
Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New
York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
FRESHPET INC: Gibbons Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshpet Inc. The
case is styled as Ashley Gibbons, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Freshpet Inc. Case No. 241002614 (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas, Oct. 21, 2024).
Freshpet, Inc. -- https://www.freshpet.com/ -- is an American pet
food company. Its cat food and dog food products are marketed as
fresh, and need to be kept refrigerated.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
HOME DEPOT U.S.A.: Timmins Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lacey Timmins, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 2:24-cv-01141 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on Oct. 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-04797-VMC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
The Home Depot, Inc. -- https://www.homedepot.com/ -- is an
American multinational home improvement retail corporation that
sells tools, construction products, appliances, and services,
including fuel and transportation rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander E. Wolf, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
401 West Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: awolf@milberg.com
KERBER ECK & BRAECKEL: Sued Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Bruner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KERBER, ECK, & BRAECKEL, LLP, Case No.
3:24-cv-03295-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., Oct. 21, 2024), is brought
arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive
data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") about its current and
former clients (and their current and former customers and
patients). But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
Cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network for an entire 12
days before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant
had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate
breaches of its systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals
unrestricted access to its current and former clients' (and their
current and former customers' and patients') Private Information.
Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class's Private Information. In short, Defendant's
failures placed the Class's Private Information in a vulnerable
position--rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals.
On March 17, 2023–almost two months after the Data Breach first
occurred--Kerber finally began notifying Class Members about the
Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). The exposure of one's Private
Information to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung.
Before this data breach, its current and former clients' (and their
current and former customers' and patients') private information
was exactly that private. Not anymore. Now, their private
information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim.
The Defendant is a mid-sized accounting and consulting firm with
eight offices in the Midwest that serve clients throughout the
nation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: raina@straussborrelli.com
sam@straussborrelli.com
LOOKS GREAT SERVICES: Frazier Sues Over Unpaid Prevailing Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelvin Frazier and Ariel Alvarez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and Kenneth Hoyte, individually v. LOOKS
GREAT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07364 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 21,
2024), is brought to recover unpaid prevailing wages, overtime
wages, and other damages on behalf of all LGS' Crew Members, based
on Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"),
the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and appropriate rules and
regulations.
LGS systematically circumvented prevailing wage laws. LGS required
each Crew Member to clock in on their time-tracking application as
a Groundman, even for those Crew Members operating heavy machinery.
LGS paid Crew Members almost exclusively at the lesser Groundman
rate, except occasionally paying the most senior member on a crew
at an Operating Engineer rate or a Tree Trimmer rate.
After numerous Crew Member complaints and a June 2022 meeting where
Crew Members voiced objection, LGS continued to require Crew
Members to clock in under the Groundman classification, but to also
note any machinery used in the time-tracking application. While
precisely tracking employee time, LGS declined to track Crew
Members' hours in the higher-paying roles. Instead, LGS paid one
hour of Operating Engineer pay--for some Crew Members, one hour per
day, and some, one per week--to some of those Crew Members who
operated heavy machinery. For others, they were still paid only at
the Groundman rate. Crew Members invariably surpassed the number of
hours paid at a higher paying rate.
In addition, LGS failed to calculate Plaintiffs' and Crew Members'
overtime rates at one and one-half times their actual regular rate.
Instead of dividing all of the wages earned over the week by the
hours worked to determine Plaintiffs' and Crew Members' regular
rate – for purposes of calculating the proper overtime rates –
LGS arbitrarily designated the regular rate to be a lesser hourly
rate. This lesser hourly rate was typically the rate used for drive
time and work on private jobs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former LGS employees who removed storm debris
and other brush and cut down, pruned, chipped, and ground trees.
LGS is a commercial tree contractor that handles disaster cleanup,
tree removal, and pruning for private entities, municipalities, and
state agencies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
Garrett Kaske, Esq.
Benjamin A. Goldstein, Esq.
KESSLER MATURA PC
534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: (631) 499-9100
Email: tkessler@kesslermatura.com
gkaske@kesslermatura.com
bgoldstein@kesslermatura.com
MDL 2924: Transfer of Valisure Suit to S.D. Fla. Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew F. Kennelly, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the transfer of the case
captioned "Valisure LLC, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al.,"
C.A. No. 2:19-04239 (E.D. Pa.) to the U. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida for inclusion in "In re: Zantac
(Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 2924.
The Valisure case is a qui tam action brought by an online pharmacy
and testing laboratory that filed a Citizen Petition in 2019 asking
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to recall Zantac based on
Valisure's product testing.
In support of transfer, GSK argues that Valisure shares common
questions of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2924 and
that transfer will promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation.
Valisure, however, presents unique claims under federal and state
false claims acts that have not previously been litigated in this
MDL, notes the Panel. While Valisure presents some common factual
questions with the actions in the MDL, the MDL proceedings have
reached an advanced stage; common discovery within the MDL has
concluded; and the transferee court has granted summary judgment to
defendants with respect to most of the actions filed in or
transferred to the MDL.
"Transfer of this qui tam action, at this stage of the MDL
proceedings, will not result in significant efficiencies. Rather,
transferring this new action--which does not easily fit within the
framework established by the transferee court for the resolution of
the remaining actions in the MDL--may complicate the winding down
of this MDL proceeding. Additionally, we are not persuaded that
litigating Valisure in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania poses a
substantial risk of duplication of efforts or inconsistent pretrial
rulings, particularly given the parties' familiarity with both the
discovery conducted in the MDL and the transferee court's rulings,
to the extent these are relevant to the claims in Valisure.
Therefore, after considering the parties' arguments, we find that
transfer of the action . . . will not serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation," rules the Panel.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-2924-Order_Denying_Transfer-9-24.pdf
MDL 3026: Hobson Suit Transfer Order Vacated
--------------------------------------------
Marcella R. Lockert, Acting Clerk of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, disclosed that the case captioned "Hobson
v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 3:24-01615 (S.D.
Ill.) was remanded to the Circuit Court of St. Clair County,
Illinois by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on October 2, 2024.
Accordingly, the Panel's conditional transfer order filed on July
1, 2024, designated as "CTO-64", transferring the Hobson action for
inclusion in "In re: Abbott Laboratories, et al., Preterm Infant
Nutrition Products Liability Litigation," MDL No. 3026, is
vacated.
A full-text copy of the court's October 3, 2024 Order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3026-Order_Vacating_CTO-9-24.pdf
MDL 3080: Sistema Intergrado Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned
Sistema Integrado De Salud Del Oeste LLC, et al. v. Eli Lilly and
Company, et al., C.A. No. 3:24−01315 (D.P.R.) to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in "In re: Insulin
Pricing Litigation," MDL No. 3080.
The MDL concerns an alleged scheme between insulin manufacturers
Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, and pharmacy benefit managers(PBM) CVS Caremark, Express
Scripts, and Optum Rx, to artificially and fraudulently inflate the
price of insulin and other diabetes medications.
In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs principally argue that their
Puerto Rico legal claims cannot be efficiently litigated in the MDL
because they involve novel issues unique to the Puerto Rico Civil
Code, which the transferor court is better situated to interpret;
and transfer to a distant forum will be inconvenient. Plaintiffs
alternatively request a stay of any transfer until the transferor
court decides their motion for remand to Puerto Rico Superior
Court.
According to the Panel, the Sistema Integrado action arises from
the same alleged "insulin pricing scheme" as the actions in the MDL
and will involve many of the same factual questions and discovery
of the insulin manufacturers and PBMs. Thus, "the allegedly unique
nature of the laws of Puerto Rico does not weigh against transfer."
Moreover, transfer is warranted despite the alleged inconvenience
to plaintiffs, who are located in Puerto Rico, opines the Panel.
There are parties from across the nation involved in this
industrywide MDL. In deciding transfer, the Panel looks to "the
overall convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation
as a whole, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in
isolation."
The Panel further held that it sees no persuasive reason to stay a
decision on transfer. "To the extent plaintiffs assert that their
remand motion must be resolved before transfer occurs, they are in
error. The Panel routinely has held, including in this MDL, that a
pending motion for remand is not an impediment to transfer," it
ruled.
A full-text copy of the court's October 4, 2024 order is available
at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3080-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
MDL 3096: O'Neill v. Perry Johnson Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned
"O'Neill, et al. v. Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc., et al.," C.A.
No. 1:24−04963 (N.D. Ill.) to U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and with the consent of that court, assigned
to Judge Rachel P. Kovner for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings in "In re: Perry Johnson & Associates Medical
Transcription Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3096.
Defendants Cook County Health & Hospitals System and Cook County
Health (collectively, CCH) moved to vacate the order that
conditionally transferred the O'Neill action to the Eastern
District of New York for inclusion in MDL No. 3096. Defendant Perry
Johnson & Associates, Inc. (Perry Johnson), and the MDL plaintiffs
opposed the motion.
CCH argues that unique factual and legal questions in O'Neill
pertaining to CCH weigh against centralization. But CCH is not the
only defendant in the O'Neill action. Perry Johnson is also sued,
and the claims against Perry Johnson are substantially similar to
the claims in the MDL. Indeed, the claims against both CCH and
Perry Johnson arise from the same 2023 data security breach of
Perry Johnson's computer network that lies at the heart of the MDL.
Common discovery will include how Perry Johnson's system was
hacked, how and when the breach was identified, what security
measures Perry Johnson and other defendants had in place to protect
customers' protected health information (PHI) and personal
identifying information (PII), and what steps defendants took after
discovering the breach, the Panel notes.
"[W]e find that the [O'Neill] action involves common questions of
fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 3096, and that
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation," rules the Panel.
A full-text copy of the court's October 3, 2024 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3096-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
MDL 3108: Lemke Case Consolidated in Change Data Breach Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers the case captioned
"Lemke, et al. v. Change Healthcare, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:24−00302 (M.D. Tenn.) to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings in "In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3108.
Defendant Healthfirst, Inc., in the Lemke case moved to vacate the
Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to MDL No.
3108. It requested that the unjust enrichment claim asserted
against Healthfirst in Count VI of the Lemke complaint be separated
and remanded to the transferor court. Plaintiffs in the Lemke
action, and defendants Change Healthcare Inc., UnitedHealth Group
Inc., UnitedHealthCare, Inc., and Optum, Inc. (together, the Change
Healthcare defendants), opposed the motion.
All actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that Change Healthcare failed to take adequate measures
to prevent and address the consequences of the cyberattack on its
network announced in February 2024, which exposed the private
information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the
ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers
to use Change Healthcare's digital platform to access insurance
information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and
receive payment for services provided to patients.
"[W]e find that the Lemke action--including Count VI--involves
common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to
MDL No. 3108, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation," rules the Panel.
Plaintiffs in Lemke, like other healthcare provider plaintiffs in
the MDL, claim that, in the wake of the data breach, they were
unable to submit insurance claims and receive payment for services
rendered, the Panel notes. Moreover, the injuries asserted in Count
VI are the same injuries asserted against the Change Healthcare
defendants by most, if not all, healthcare provider plaintiffs.
It is not clear whether the claim against Healthfirst (and
potentially other insurance companies) is separable from the other
counts in the Lemke complaint. The Count VI claim of unjust
enrichment is asserted against Healthfirst and a putative class of
insurer defendants. The Lemke plaintiffs argue that some of the
Change Healthcare defendants are insurance companies that would be
members of that putative defendant class. The Change Healthcare
defendants do not deny this; rather, they state that it is unclear
whether UnitedHealthcare, Inc., could be considered an insurance
company that falls within the putative insurer defendants' class.
"In these circumstances, transferring Count VI to the MDL seems the
best course of action," the Panel opines. "It will allow the
transferee court to determine how best to handle the claim in Count
VI, the degree to which it is separable, and whether, or when,
remand might be appropriate. Transfer also will ensure that all
potentially liable defendants are before the transferee court and
represented in the MDL."
A full-text copy of the court's October 3, 2024 transfer order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3108-Transfer_Order-9-24.pdf
PRIME MARKETING SOURCE: Smith Files TCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Marketing
Source, Inc. The case is styled as Stewart Smith, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prime Marketing
Source, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-07359 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Prime Marketing Source -- http://www.primemarketingsource.com/--
provides and offers digital marketing services to improve business
growth.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
275 Seventh Avenue, 7th Floor, Suite 410
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Albany Condominium Sues Over Deceptive Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Albany Condominium Association; JD Feldman Properties, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC.; ALLIED WASTE TRANSPORTATION, INC.; BFI WASTE
SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP, Case No. 1:24-cv-10852 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 21,
2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' systematic
deceptive and unfair scheme to charge its customers more than the
agreed amounts.
Republic has engaged in a widespread and systematic practice of
overcharging its customers through two separate, but related
coordinated schemes: implementing unlawful YMP Rate Increases and
charging unlawful, deceptive and unfair "Fuel Recovery Fees" and
"Environmental Recovery Fees" (collectively, the "Fees" herein).
Republic enters into the agreements knowing that it will increase
the promised rates without justification. The contracts
specifically restrict Republic's ability to increase rates to five
specific circumstances, only one of which is at issue in this case.
Specifically, the form contract contemplates that Republic may
increase rates "to adjust for any increase in the Consumer Price
Index." In blatant violation of this contractual limitation,
Republic has deliberately and repeatedly overcharged customers
through Rate Increases that far out-strip the increases--if any--in
consumer price index. These Rate Increases are imposed frequently
and are significant in amount, often exceeding 90% over the course
of a contractual term, and greatly exceed the increases in the
consumer price index which purportedly justify them.
In addition to assessing YMP Rate Increases on its customers,
Republic has also increased prices by imposing fee it calls
"Fuel/Environmental Recovery Fees" but which, in fact, has no
relationship to its actual or increased fuel or environmental
costs. Rather, Republic uses these Fees—in intent and effect--as
a hidden price increase. The Fuel Recovery Fee bears absolutely no
relation to Republic's actual or increased fuel costs and Republic
does not use the proceeds from the Fuel Recovery Fee to offset such
costs. In fact, Republic includes any fuel costs it might incur in
delivering its services through the standard rates it charges
customers.
Further, this case presents a prototypical situation for class
treatment. Republic's conduct--including all relevant practices,
conduct, and documents--is uniform among all class members. The
application of common law to an identical course of conduct will
determine liability for the classes as a whole, ensuring that the
rights of thousands of small businesses are vindicated through the
efficiency of a single trial, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Albany Condominium Association is an Illinois entity
located in Cook County, Illinois.
Republic is one of the largest solid waste disposal companies in
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael C. Seamands, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC
1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825
St. Louis, MO 63144
Phone: 314.802.7730
Fax: 314.260.9645
Email: mcs@mcs-legal.com
- and -
Ryan A. Keane, Esq.
Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq.
KEANE LAW LLC
7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 391-4700
Fax: (314) 244-3778
Email: ryan@keanelawllc.com
tanner@keanelawllc.com
- and -
Nicholas W. Armstrong, Esq.
Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
Graham Cotten, Esq.
PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
1919 Cahaba Road
Birmingham, AL 35223
Phone: 205.208.9588
Email: nick@pricearmstrong.com
oscar@pricearmstrong.com
graham@pricearmstrong.com
RTX CORPORATION: Goldstein Suit Transferred to D. Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mark H. Goldstein, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. RTX Corporation, Case No.
1:24-cv-11525 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Oct. 21, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01169-JLH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.
RTX Corporation -- https://www.rtx.com/ -- formerly Raytheon
Technologies Corporation, is an American multinational aerospace
and defense conglomerate headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.[BN]
SEPHORA USA: Camp Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Linda Camp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SEPHORA USA, INC., Case No.
CGC-24-618211 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, on Oct. 21, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07330.
The Complaint asserts a claim for violation of Arizona's Telephone,
Utility and Communication Service Records Act ("Arizona Records
Act"), on behalf of Plaintiff and a putative class of other
similarly situated individuals located in Arizona arising from
Defendant's alleged use of tracking pixels in its marketing
emails.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Patrick Rubalcava, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
Phone: 310.228.3700
Facsimile: 310.228.3701
Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
prubalcava@sheppardmullin.com
TIVITY HEALTH: Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set for Dec. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Tivity Health Securities Litigation:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
ROBERT STROUGO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TIVITY HEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00165
CLASS ACTION
Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TIVITY HEALTH,
INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN MARCH 8, 2019 AND FEBRUARY 19, 2020,
INCLUSIVE
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 Middle District of Tennessee, that the lawsuit that is now
pending in that Court under the caption Strougo v. Tivity Health,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 3:20-cv-00165 (M.D. Tenn.) (the
"Action") against Tivity Health, Inc. ("Tivity Health"), Donato
Tramuto, Adam C. Holland, and Dawn Zier, has been certified as a
class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and
entities that are excluded from the Class by definition as set
forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
("Notice").
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A Postcard Notice is currently being mailed or emailed
to known Class Members. If you have not yet received the Postcard
Notice, or you wish to obtain a copy of the Notice, you may contact
the Notice Administrator at:
Tivity Health Securities Litigation
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
1-888-756-7630
www.TivityHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class
Counsel:
Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
1-615-244-2203
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and
holdings in Tivity Health common stock. You will automatically be
included in the Class. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in
this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. At this
time there has been no monetary recovery, and there is no guarantee
that one will be obtained in the future.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later than
December 2, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the full printed Notice. Please note, if you decide to exclude
yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose. Pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within
the Court’s discretion as to whether a second opportunity to
request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a
settlement in the Action.
Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator or by visiting
www.TivityHealthSecuritiesLitigation.com.
Please Do Not Call or Write the Defendants or the Court with
Questions.
DATED: September 26, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
TREE HOUSE DISPENSARY: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE TREE HOUSE DISPENSARY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07994
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
Website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.treehousedispensaryinc.com and therefore its denial of the
goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The
Defendant's Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually
impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the
ADA. 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
THE TREE HOUSE DISPENSARY, INC. is a New York corporation that owns
and maintains the Website, www.treehousedispensaryinc.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
VISA INC: Old Jericho Appeals Judgment to 2nd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
OLD JERICHO ENTERPRISE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc.,
et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Visa, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-2394, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for their violations of the Illinois
Antitrust Act on behalf of gasoline retailers, who obtain their
credit-card acceptance service via suppliers.
On Sept. 5, 2024, Judge Margo K. Brodie entered a memorandum and
opinion (previously filed under seal) regarding Old Jericho
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court held
that Old Jericho Plaintiffs "accepted" payment cards within the
meaning of the Settlement Agreement, and that Old Jericho
Plaintiffs are bound by the 2019 Rule 23(b)(3) Class Settlement's
Release. Accordingly, the Court denied Old Jericho Plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.
On Oct. 3, 2024, the Court granted Old Jericho Plaintiffs' Motion
for Entry of Judgment, and Judgment was entered for Defendants in
the case.
The appellate case is captioned Old Jericho Enterprise, Inc. v.
Visa, Inc., Case No. 24-2678, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, filed on October 9, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants OLD JERICHO ENTERPRISE, INC., et al., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Christopher J. Bateman, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York,, NY 10005
Defendants-Appellees VISA, INC., et al. are represented by:
Matthew Eisenstein, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
- and -
Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
WEED SHOPPE INC: Turner Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Tavon Turner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE WEED SHOPPE INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07995 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 21, 2024), is brought against Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.theweedshoppe.co and therefore its denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The website
www.theweedshoppe.co provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other
programs offered by AWAKE STORE LLC. Yet, www.theweedshoppe.co
contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind customers to use the website. In fact, the
access barriers make it impossible for blind users to even complete
a transaction on the website. Thus, Defendant excludes the blind
from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet
economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common
marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances
in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an
increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind
persons to fully and independently access a variety of services.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
cannabis infused gummies on www.theweedshoppe.co. However, unless
Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website,
Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse, use and complete a transaction on
www.theweedshoppe.co. The Defendant's Website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. 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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
THE WEED SHOPPE INC., is a New York corporation that owns and
maintains a physical dispensary and associated Website,
www.theweedshoppe.co.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***