/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241031.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, October 31, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 219
Headlines
AETNA INC: Crozier Class Suit Alleges Violations of ERISA
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Mowry Says
ALO LLC: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Frisbie Suit Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hartwig Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Strikes Electronically Filed Documents
AMERICAN HONDA: Plotts Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
AMERICAN PAIN: Must Produce Certain Documents in Smith Suit
AMERICAN WATER: Evans Sues Over Failed Data Security Practices
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Karwoski Claims
APPLE INC: Orshan Appeals Class Certification Order to 9th Circuit
AXOS BANK: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Ash Suit to 9th Cir.
AXOS BANK: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Pliszka to 9th Cir.
BADIA SPICES: Cinnamon Powder Contains Lead, Gittens Suit Alleges
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 17, 2025
BIO-LAB INC: Davis Sues Over Chemical Fire Due to Negligence
BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Schlaugies Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
BRECKEN GOLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Igartua Suit Says
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: LSTC's Bid for Class Certification OK'd
CLUB EARLYBIRD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Suit Says
COLUMBIA CARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Igartua Suit Says
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Lindley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info
CORVEL CORP: Underpays Vehicle Owners for Damages, Couto Suit Says
CROCS INC: Seeks to Redact Portions of Transcripts
CS CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Russell Suit Says
DANIELSON NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 11
DANRIE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
DARREN INDYKE: Bensky Seeks Leave to File Reply Under Partial Seal
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC: Adams Seeks to Certify Class
DOOBIEZ LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Says
ELEVATED HERB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Claims
EQUIFAX INFO: Sullivan Must File Class Cert Rely by Dec. 6
ERCOLE USA: Cheley Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
ERIC OLSON: Court Narrows Claims in Cunningham Suit
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Bryant Sues Over Private Data Breach
FITON INC: Discloses Clients' Info to 3rd Parties, Hoffman Alleges
FORCE FACTOR: Mendez Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
FORD MOTOR: Breshears Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
FRANKLIN SPORTS: Miller et al. Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GENERAC POWER: Dawson & Hill Sue Over Undisclosed Generator Defect
GENERAL DATATECH: Faces Chappell Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GENERAL MILLS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Cleary Sues Over Data Security Failures
GLOCK INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Cir.
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Carder Due Jan. 17, 2025
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Cortez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Conditional Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
I.C. SYSTEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition
INVAPHARM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges
JERSEY ROOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Claims
JOHN HARDY: Violates FTSA's Caller ID Rules, Figueroa Suit Alleges
KIRA LABS: Competello Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance
LANDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Bankston & Robinson Sue Over Rent-to-Own Fraud
LIFE HOME: Faces Chae Suit Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
LONG ISLAND: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Kakish Alleges
LOS COMPADRES: Caballero Seeks Certification of Collective
MANITOU EQUIPMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 22, 2025
MARK CUBAN: Briefing Order for Class Cert. Vacated in Robertson
MC2 DATA: Jones Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info
MEDIBASE GROUP: Barbaria Seeks to Stay Class Cert Requirement
MERRILL LYNCH: Opening Briefs in Valelly Class Suit Due Nov. 27
MMS GROUP: Bid to File Torres Medical Records Under Seal OK'd
MODERNIZE INC: Robertson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pace Suit Alleges
OUTSET MEDICAL: Plymouth Sues Over Drop in Share Price
PAC HOUSING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 23, 2025
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Class Settlement in Stanley Gets Final Nod
PATAFOODS INC: Faces Vu Class Suit Over Smoothie Melts' False Ads
PNC BANK: Removes Melian Class Suit to C.D. Cal.
PRIME ASCOT: Fact Discovery in Leaser Class Suit Due July 31, 2025
RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report Terminated
RIVERSIDE, CA: Bid to Reset Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
SD PICKLEBALL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
SOLO FUNDS: Faces Class Action Over Loans' False, Deceptive Ads
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Whipple's Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd
SPRING FERTILITY: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Suit Says
SUPER MICRO: Covey Financial et al. Sue Over Securities Law Breach
TICKETMASTER LLC: Agrees to Settle $6-Mil. Canadian Class-Action
TIKTOK INC: Seeks to Continue Reconsideration Hearing to Dec. 1
UNITED MORTGAGE: Seeks More Time File Class Cert Response
VIRTUA HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Suit Over Retirement Plans
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Faces Kermani Suit Over Free Shipping Ads
WPROMOTE LLC: Garcia Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
*********
AETNA INC: Crozier Class Suit Alleges Violations of ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN CROZIER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. AETNA INC., and CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00924 (W.D.N.C., October
18, 2024) seeks to require Aetna to pay benefits due from its Aetna
Services Inc., Incentive Savings Plan (ISP) to Plaintiff Carolyn
Crozier and other similarly situated class members.
The Defendants have breached the ISP by failing or refusing to pay
Plaintiff the benefits held in her late husband's ISP account.
Despite receiving notice of a specific amount held under Aetna's
ISP under her husband's name and despite providing Aetna notice of
the death of her husband, Aetna has not paid Plaintiff the funds to
which she is entitled or communicated with her about the account.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for unjust
enrichment, constructive trust, and for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Headquartered in Hartford, CT, Aetna Inc. offers medical, pharmacy,
dental, behavioral health, group life, disability, and health care
management services. The company merged with CVS and is now a
wholly-owned subsidiary of CVS Health Corporation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C
5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 277-0161
Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Mowry Says
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN MOWRY, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Albertsons
Companies 401(k) Plan, Plaintiff v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.; and
DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-07314-SK (N.D.
Cal., Oct. 21, 2024) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed
to consult with an independent non-conflicted decision maker to
advise them in deciding upon the best course of action for
allocating forfeitures, as a prudent person would have done. The
Defendants have consistently and reflexively chosen to act in their
own self-interest, to the detriment of the Plan and its
participants, by using forfeitures only to reduce Company
contributions.
While the Defendants' decisions to use Plan forfeitures to reduce
Company contributions benefitted the Company by lowering its costs,
they harmed the Plan and its participants by reducing the amount of
contributions the Plan otherwise would have received and by causing
deductions from participants' accounts to cover expenses that
otherwise would have been covered in whole or in part by Plan
forfeitures, says the suit.
Albertsons Companies, Inc. retails food and drugs products. The
Company distributes fruits, vegetables, canned items, medicines,
and other related goods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
1414 Fair Oaks Avenue, Unit 2B
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Telephone: (626) 808-4357
Email: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com
ALO LLC: Underpays Non-Exempt Employees, Frisbie Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TRISHA FRISBIE, an individual on behalf of herself and the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, as Private Attorney General, Plaintiff v. ALO, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV27357 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., October 18, 2024) arises out of ALO's failure to
comply with the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare
Committee (IWC) Wage Order No. 7-2001 with respect to the treatment
and payment of non-exempt employees.
Plaintiff Frisbie began working for ALO at its Fashion Island
location in Newport Beach, CA as the store's manager on or about
February 20, 2023, until her termination on August 16, 2024.
Allegedly, Defendants misclassified Plaintiff and many other
non-exempt employees at their California business locations as
exempt from overtime, even though they did not meet the
requirements for any of the potential overtime exemptions available
under IWC Wage Order No. 7.
Aside from Defendants' failure to pay all minimum wages, regular
wages, and overtime and double time wages, and premium payments for
non-compliant meal and rest periods to Plaintiff and aggrieved
employees throughout their employment, Defendants also violated the
California Labor Code because they failed to pay Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees all wage due and owing to them during their
employment within permissible time periods, says the suit.
Headquartered in Los Angeles County, ALO is a retail business that
sells athletic, yoga, and athleisure wear both online and in
stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lauren E. Grochow, Esq.
GROCHOW LAW, A PROFESSIONAL CORP.
33 Brookline
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 506-1494
E-mail: lauren@grochowlaw.com
- and -
Morgan E. Podruski, Esq.
SOCAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYER, APC
33 Brookline
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
Telephone: (949) 393-6393
E-mail: morgan@employmentlawyersocal.com
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Hartwig Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skylar Hartwig, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. American Airlines,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-SMB (CD.
Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of time to file motion for Rule 23 Class Certification.
On March 27, 2024, this Court entered an order requiring that the
Plaintiff file a Rule 23 Motion for Class Certification 45 days
following a ruling on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff sent Defendant a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice regarding the claims in this case, including
information relevant to certification. The parties met and
conferred regarding the scope of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
The Plaintiff Hartwig and Defendant's Counsel, Kelly Wood, would be
traveling from out of state to Phoenix for the depositions, which
has also made coordinating schedules difficult.
The parties are still working cooperatively together to schedule
those depositions, but due to complications in that regard, they
anticipate those depositions having to go forward after the current
deadline for the certification motion.
In the interim on Oct. 9, 2024, this Court issued its Order
partially granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, but ultimately
Plaintiff's claim under the Arizona Wage Statute can still go
forward.
The Plaintiff intends to seek Rule 23 class certification as to
that claim. However, Plaintiff's Rule 23 certification motion is
currently due on Nov. 25, 2024.
Despite Plaintiff's best efforts, complications in scheduling
witness testimony prior to that deadline necessitate an extension
on the Rule 23 class certification motion for 60 days, up to and
including January 24, 2025.
American Airlines is a major airline in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7xafBd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Brown, Esq.
Joshua M. Ernst, Esq.
ERNST, BROWN & DRAPER, PLLC
1930 S. Alma School Road, Suite A200
Mesa, AZ 85210
Telephone: (602) 324-9673
E-mail: TBrown@ebdlawyers.com
JErnst@ebdlawyers.com
- and -
Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC
2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 598-4000
E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com
patti@frankelsyverson.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Court Strikes Electronically Filed Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEC PLOTTS, et al., v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. Case No. 2:22-cv-04529-RGK-AS (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gary Klausner entered an order striking
electronically filed documents for failure to comply with the
Court's Local Rules, General Orders, and/or Case Management Order.
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda
Motor Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSq27m at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Plotts Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEC PLOTTS, MARC CAINE,
AND LETICIA RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-04529-RGK-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 25, 2024,
or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard, will move for an
order certifying classes comprised of:
Illinois Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of Illinois"
Illinois Breach of Express Warranty Subclass:
"All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda
Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020- 2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of Illinois; and (2) presented their
vehicle
to a Honda dealership for a repair regarding their infotainment
system before June 15, 2023 and (3) during the 3 year/36,000
miles
Time and Mileage Period set forth in Honda’s New Vehicle
Limited
Warranty"
Minnesota Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of Minnesota"
Iowa Breach of Express Warranty Subclass:
"All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda
Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020- 2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of Minnesota; and (2) presented their
vehicle
to a Honda dealership for a repair regarding their infotainment
system before June 15, 2023 and (3) during the 3 year/36,000
miles
Time and Mileage Period set forth in Honda’s New Vehicle
Limited
Warranty"
New York Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020-2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of New York"
New York Breach of Express Warranty Subclass:
"All persons who (1) purchased or leased any 2020-2022 Honda
Pilot
(all except LX), 2020 Honda Passport (all except Sport),
2021-2022
Honda Passport, and 2020- 2022 Honda Odyssey (all except LX)
vehicle in the State of New York; and (2) presented their
vehicle
to a Honda dealership for a repair regarding their infotainment
system before June 15, 2023 and (3) during the 3 year/36,000
miles
Time and Mileage Period set forth in Honda’s New Vehicle
Limited
Warranty"
Honda allegedly breached its promise in its New Vehicle Limited
Warranty to "repair or replace any part that is defective in
material or workmanship under normal use."
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda
Motor Company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pd5c7O at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
Stephen Taylor, Esq.
Joshua Markovits, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
1100 West Town & Country Rd., Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (480) 247-9644
Facsimile: (480) 717-4781
E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com
staylor@lemberglaw.com
jmarkovits@lemberglaw.com
AMERICAN PAIN: Must Produce Certain Documents in Smith Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD SMITH and SHAE
LOFTICE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. AMERICAN PAIN AND WELLNESS, PLLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00295-ALM
(E.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
The Court concludes that the documents and responses sought by the
Plaintiffs are relevant and proportional to this case.
Thus, the Court orders Defendant to produce or make available to
Plaintiffs all unproduced documents responsive to Request Nos. 1,
4, and 22 that are in its possession, and to adequately respond to
Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 5.
The Plaintiffs Richard Smith and Shae Loftice assert that American
Pain and Wellness, PLLC's failure to secure highly sensitive
personal identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") allowed "cybercriminals to infiltrate its
insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach."
The Plaintiffs contend that the data breach constituted an invasion
of their privacy, causing a diminution in the value of their
PII/PHI and exposing them to a greater risk of identity theft.
Consequently, the Plaintiffs purport to suffer from "anxiety, sleep
disruption, stress, fear, and frustration."
On April 24, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Amended Class Action
Complaint. The Plaintiffs bring their Class Action Complaint on
behalf of themselves and all others harmed by Defendant's alleged
misconduct.
American Pain provides non-operative spine and sports medicine
care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rpc5u2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN WATER: Evans Sues Over Failed Data Security Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09910 (D.N.J., October 18, 2024) arises
from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard
personally identifiable information of potentially millions of
individuals.
According to its regulatory filing submitted to the SEC, on or
about October 3, 2024, the Defendant learned of unauthorized
activity within its computer networks and systems which it
determined to be the result of a cybersecurity incident. As a
result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members, suffered
concrete injuries in fact including (i) invasion of privacy; (ii)
theft of their PII; (iii) and lost or diminished value of PII.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
stolen and released by cybercriminals in the Data Breach. The
Plaintiff also asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
American Water Works Company, Inc. is a New Jersey-based water and
wastewater utility company that provides essential water and
wastewater services to more than 14 million people across 14
states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
212 W. Spring Valley Road
Richardson, TX 75081
AMERICAN WATER: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Karwoski Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KARWOSKI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10902 (N.D. Ill., October 23,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach on October 3, 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.
American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water and wastewater
services provider with its principal place of business in Camden,
New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Tiffany Wong, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: jpollack@4-justice.com
lfeldman@4-justice.com
Eservice@4-justice.com
- and –
David J. George, Esq.
Brittany Sackrin, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
Lake Worth, FL 33467
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: DGeorge@4-justice.com
BSackrin@4-justice.com
EService@4-justice.com
APPLE INC: Orshan Appeals Class Certification Order to 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL ORSHAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting in part and denying in part their motion to certify class
in the lawsuit entitled Paul Orshan, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Apple,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
brought this complaint against the Defendant for false and
misleading product packaging and promotional materials regarding
storage capacity of 8 GB and 16 GB iPhones, iPads and iPods with
iOS 8 operating system.
On Oct. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On Feb. 9, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to exclude testimony
of Plaintiffs' Expert Dr. Andreas Groehn.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Edward J. Davila granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and the
Defendant's motion to exclude testimony. The Court certified the
California Preinstall Subclass but declined to certify the
nationwide Upgrade and Preinstall Subclasses. The Court also agreed
with Apple that Dr. Groehn's first damage model (the
"Rule-of-Three" Model) does not pass muster. But the Court found
that Dr. Groehn's remaining two damage models (the "Incremental
Price Regression Model" and the "Hedonic Regression Model") are
reliable enough to consider at the class certification stage.
The appellate case is captioned Paul Orshan, et al. v. Apple Inc.,
Case No. 24-6271, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, filed on October 16, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners PAUL ORSHAN, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Michael McShane, Esq.
Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 568-2555
Email: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
lkuang@audetlaw.com
- and -
William H. Anderson, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80303
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
Email: wanderson@hfajustice.com
AXOS BANK: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Ash Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AXOS BANK is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part
and denying in part its motion to compel arbitration or dismiss in
the lawsuit entitled Kyle Ash, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Axos Bank,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01157-RSH-BJC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed against the Defendant for misrepresentations and omissions
in connection with its false marketing of a series of purportedly
"high yielding" savings accounts that did not offer the highest
interest rates available in the market.
On Aug. 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration
or, in the alternative, to dismiss class action complaint, which
the Court granted in part and denied in part through an Order
entered by Judge Robert S. Huie on Sept. 13, 2024.
The Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The
Court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration for a
determination of arbitrability and possible arbitration of the
Plaintiffs' individual claims, in the manner provided for in the
original Online Access Agreement. The case is stayed pending the
completion of arbitration proceedings pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. The
Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Ash, et al. v. Axos Bank, Case No.
24-6277, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on October 16, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 21,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 25, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 26,
2024. [BN]
AXOS BANK: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Pliszka to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AXOS BANK is taking an appeal from a court order granting in part
and denying in part its motion to compel arbitration or dismiss in
the lawsuit entitled Joseph Pliszka, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Axos Bank, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00445-RSH-BJC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
is filed against the Defendant for deceptive and unfair tactic of
surreptitiously reclassifying its customers' purportedly high-yield
money market accounts into lower yielding "legacy" accounts.
On June 4, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and to compel arbitration, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part through an Order entered by
Judge Robert S. Huie on Sept. 13, 2024.
The Court granted the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The
Court ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration for a
determination of arbitrability and possible arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims, in the manner provided for in the
original Online Access Agreement. The case is stayed pending the
completion of arbitration proceedings pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. The
Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Pliszka v. Axos Bank, Case No.
24-6273, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on October 16, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on October 21,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on November 25, 2024;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on December 26,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH PLISZKA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Philip Marcel Black, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
BADIA SPICES: Cinnamon Powder Contains Lead, Gittens Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIA GITTENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BADIA SPICES, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-07965 (S.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 18, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Badia Cinnamon Powder
contain lead.
The Plaintiff avers that the Products do not include any labeling
indicating to consumers that they contain lead. There is no warning
indicating that consuming the Products can expose consumers to
lead. Based on the labels and the fact that the Products are sold
and marketed as food products fit for consumption, consumers are
misled into believing that these Products do not contain lead.
However, recent testing by Consumer Reports shows that Badia's
Cinnamon Powder has lead levels greater than 1 part per million, a
level that triggers a recall in New York. Testing by the State of
New York also shows that Badia's Products contain lead. In 2024,
the New York Office of the Attorney General put Badia on notice for
lead contamination in their Cinnamon Powder Products. There is no
need for Defendant's Products to contain lead. Other spice and
powder makers are able to make spice products without the lead
levels in Badia's products, the suit asserts.
Lead is toxic to humans. It accumulates in the body and "affect[s]
multiple body systems." In children, it can cause "permanent
adverse health impacts, particularly on the development of the
central nervous system." It also "causes long-term harm in adults,
including increased risk of high blood pressure, cardiovascular
problems and kidney damage. The Plaintiff believed that the product
was properly manufactured, free from defects, safe for consumption,
and not adulterated or misbranded, the suit says.
In summer of 2024, the Plaintiff Gittens purchased the Badia
Cinnamon Powder from a ShopRite store while living in Mohegan Lake,
NY.
Badia makes, sells, distributes, and markets spice products,
including Badia Cinnamon Powder.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin K. Cho, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Cert Filing Extended to March 17, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mirvis, et al., v.
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02210 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Sanket J. Bulsara Judge entered an
order extending
deadlines as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Jan. 28. 2025
-- Motion for class certification and March 17,
2025
plaintiffs' expert reports shall be
filed by:
-- The opposition to the motion for class May 16, 2025
certification and defendants' expert
reports shall be filed by:
-- The reply to the opposition to the June 30, 2025
motion for class certification and
plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports
shall be filed by:
The suit alleges violation of the Federal Trade Commission
Act.[CC]
BIO-LAB INC: Davis Sues Over Chemical Fire Due to Negligence
------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOND DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-LAB, INC., and KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04767-SEG (N.D. Ga., October 18,
2024) arises from Defendants' reckless and negligent practices
that resulted in the September 29, 2024 chemical fire at the
Conyers Plant in Georgia.
The Plaintiff alleges that the the Defendants failed to act with
reasonable care to take sufficient precautions which would have
prevented or mitigated the chemical fire and toxic smoke and dust
plume and otherwise acted with utter indifference, recklessly, and
with willful and wanton misconduct. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims
for negligence, nuisance, trespass, and for punitive damages.
A wholly-owed subsidiary of KIK,Bio-Lab, Inc. manufactures and
supplies chemicals for pool and spa water throughout the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Blakely, Jr
THE BLAKELY FIRM, LLC
309 Sycamore Street
Decatur, GA 30030
BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Schlaugies Sues Over Unprotected Private Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN SCHLAUGIES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOSTON CHILDREN’S HEALTH PHYSICIANS, LLP
d/b/a BOSTON CHILDREN’S HEALTH PHYSICIANS, Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-07969 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024), arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected
personally identifiable information and electronic private health
information.
On October 4, 2024, the Defendant began mailing letters to
individuals that described on September 6, 2024, Defendant's IT
vendor informed them that it identified unusual activity in its
systems. By September 10, 2024, the Defendant had detected
unauthorized activity in its network, wherein an unauthorized
third-party gained entry into Defendant's computer networks and
systems, accessed the PII/PHI and exfiltrated the information from
those systems. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, bring claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.
Headquartered in New York, Boston Children's Health Physicians is a
medical service provider that provides comprehensive care for
newborns, children, and adolescents across New York and
Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
Radhika Gupta, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
pdemato@lowey.com
rgupta@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
BRECKEN GOLD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Igartua Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BRECKEN GOLD ATHLETICS NYC LLC d/b/a BRECKENRIDGE
CANNABIS, Case No. 1:24-cv-07955 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2024) sues the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website, www.breckenridgecannabiscafe.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Oct. 14,
2024, as a result of a recommendation by a close friend who had
been aware of the Plaintiff's condition. Therefore, on this same
day, Plaintiff accessed Defendant's Website with a sighted relative
and was very impressed with the companies thoroughness of each
product sold online, detailing each of its unique characteristics.
However, when attempting to discover crucial medical information
about this product and others with similar properties from the
Website including any potential contraindications, Plaintiff was
unable to discern any further information other than what was
contained within the Product Tile, as a result of "Linked Images
Missing Alternative Text," and "Missing Form Labels," the suit
says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a 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 consumers.
Mr. Igartua is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Brecken Gold specializes in providing high-quality CBD
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust
Company, LLC ("LSTC") v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No.
1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order granting leave to file under seal certain documents in
connection with its Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, appointment of class
representative, and appointment of class counsel.
LSTC seeks to file under seal an unredacted version of the
Memorandum of Law, in addition to certain unredacted exhibits
appended to the associated Declaration of Amanda S. Coleman.
Materials LSTC Seeks to File Under Seal Because certain exhibits
appended to the Declaration contain confidential and proprietary
business and personal information, LSTC seeks to have Exhibits E,
F, J, L, M, N and O filed in redacted forms or under seal on the
docket.
Exhibits E, F, L, M, N and O contain the names and account numbers
of Loomis clients.
Citigroup provides banking and financial services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dKGHuX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Baltay, Esq.
Dean Richlin, Esq.
Kenneth S. Leonetti, Esq.
Leah S. Rizkallah, Esq.
Amanda S. Coleman, Esq.
Natalie F. Panariello, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (617) 832-1262
E-mail: MBaltay@foleyhoag.com
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: LSTC's Bid for Class Certification OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOOMIS SAYLES TRUST
COMPANY, LLC ("LSTC"), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
(1) Granting LSTC's motion for class certification;
(2) Certifying the proposed Class defined as follows in the
accompanying Memorandum of Law:
a. The owners of the 232 identified accounts managed by
Loomis,
Sayles & Company, L.P. or by LTSC, plus the owners of
more
than 3,000 subaccounts to wrap fee program omnibus
accounts
managed by Loomis, each of which was allocated shares of
Shopify, Inc. and/or Colgate-Palmolive Company as
purchased
and sold by the Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
on
their behalf on March 18, 2022, and which suffered damage
as
a result;
(3) Appointing LSTC as Class Representative; and
(4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel.
Citigroup provides banking and financial services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XTsf1Y at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Baltay, Esq.
Dean Richlin, Esq.
Kenneth S. Leonetti, Esq.
Leah S. Rizkallah, Esq.
Amanda S. Coleman, Esq.
Natalie F. Panariello, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
CLUB EARLYBIRD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Miller Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB EARLYBIRD ACQUISITION
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00996 (W.D.N.Y., October
18, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant allegedly failed to make its website available in a
manner compatible with computer
screen reader programs, depriving 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.
Club Earlybird Acquisition Company, LLC owns and maintains the
interactive website, https://clubearlybird.com, which provides
consumers with access to an array of goods and services including
information about its dietary supplements, as well as other types
of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and
internet pricing specials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
COLUMBIA CARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Igartua Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN IGARTUA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COLUMBIA CARE NY LLC d/b/a CANNABIST, Case No.
1:24-cv-07963 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's
Website, www.gocannabist.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's Website around Oct. 16,
2024, as a result of a recommendation by a close friend who had
been aware of the Plaintiff's condition. Therefore, on this same
day, the Plaintiff accessed the Defendant's Website with a sighted
relative and was very impressed with the companies thoroughness of
each product sold online, detailing each of its unique
characteristics.
However, when attempting to discover crucial medical information
about this product and others with similar properties from the
Website including any potential contraindications, Plaintiff was
unable to discern any further information other than what was
contained within the Product Tile, as a result of "Linked Images
Missing Alternative Text," and "Missing Form Labels," the suit
says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a 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 consumers.
Mr. Igartua is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Columbia Care is a medical marijuana dispensary.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Lindley Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEANA LINDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-10902 (N.D. Ill., October 23, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its affiliate's
network systems following a data breach between October 29, 2023,
and November 2, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify
the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data
breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and
Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties.
Continental Casualty Company is an insurance company with its
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.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
CORVEL CORP: Underpays Vehicle Owners for Damages, Couto Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF COUTO and HEIDI COUTO, and COUTO & SONS PROPERTY SERVICE, LLC,
for themselves and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CORVEL CORPORATION, ALACRITY ADJUSTING SOLUTIONS,
LLC, ALACRITY CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, LLC, MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-00144-KLD (D. Mont.,
October 16, 2024) asserts various causes of action against
Defendants for the handling of Plaintiffs' personal claim as well
as claims on behalf of the putative class of other similarly
situated vehicle owners regarding Mitchell's "Work Center Total
Loss" (WCTL) software that is designed to and does result in
underpayment of claims.
According to the complaint, a Sysco Food Corp. semi-truck
sideswiped and totaled Plaintiff's parked 2001 Suburban. Sysco,
self-insured for such claims, used CorVel as a claim handler.
CorVel contracted with Alacrity Claims to adjust Plaintiffs' claim.
Alacrity used Mitchell's WCTL software to compare vehicles selected
as "comparables."
As a result of this process, Alacrity and CorVel claimed that
Couto's Suburban was worth less than $5,000; meanwhile Coutos found
that they would have to spend closer to $10,000 to buy a Suburban
or similar large SUV of the same age and mileage. Further, the WCTL
formula artificially depressed the value of the comparable vehicles
by subtracting a cryptic "projected sold adjustment," which reduced
the value of the comparable vehicles by an amount representing what
the owner of the totaled vehicle supposedly could negotiate by
"haggling" with the car salesman, says the suit.
This action contends that both the undervaluation of mileage
depreciation and the PSA that are incorporated into the WCTL
software violate Montana law by systematically and programmatically
paying owners of totaled vehicles less than actual replacement
value and seeks remedies and redress for these owners. It also
contends that the Mitchell collision repair estimate product
underpays vehicle owners for damage to their vehicles.
CorVel Corporation is an American technology company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John M. Morrison, Esq.
Scott Peterson, Esq.
MORRISON SHERWOOD WILSON
401 North Last Chance Gulch
P.O. Box 557
Helena, MT 59601
Telephone: (406) 442-3261
Facsimile: (406) 443-7294
E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com
CROCS INC: Seeks to Redact Portions of Transcripts
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTHA VALENTINE, RUBY
CORNEJO, and TIFFANY AVINO, each an individual, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v.
CROCS, INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-07463-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order directing the clerk to redact and
seal limited portions of the Transcripts held on Sept. 24, 2024,
and Sept. 25, 2024.
-- The unredacted Transcripts were filed under seal on Sept. 30,
2024, and Oct. 2, 2024, and Crocs timely filed a Notice of
Intent
to Request Redactions of the Transcript.
-- The designated portions of the Transcripts should be sealed
because they contain Defendant's proprietary and confidential
business information.
-- Disclosure of the sealed information would provide Crocs'
competitors with Crocs' information about its compounds, the
tests
it performs on its products, and proprietary data and analysis
about Crocs' business and products, all of which would harm
Crocs'
competitive standing.
Crocs is an American footwear company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BHMvLs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Becca J. Wahlquist, Esq.
Ruth M. Kwon, Esq.
Jonathan K. Cooperman, Esq.
Caitlin R. Hickey, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 547-4900
Facsimile: (213) 547-4901
E-mail: BWahlquist@kelleydrye.com
RKwon@kelleydrye.com
CHickey@kelleydrye.com
JCooperman@kelleydrye.com
CS CONTRACT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Russell Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
DAVID RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CS CONTRACT SOLUTIONS, LLC d/b/a/ CONEXA
TECHNOLOGIES; FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS PARENT, INC.; BENJAMIN
SUNDERLAND; and KEITH CRISTOBAL, Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-02421
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 18, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Russell was employed by the Defendants as a technician.
CS Contract Solutions, LLC d/b/a Conexa Technologies is a
telecommunications vendor in the United States, specializing in
long-term, project-based staffing solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
CRABILL PLLC
71-01 Austin Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (727) 335-1030
Email: tcrabill@crabilllawfirm.com
DANIELSON NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to Dec. 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re California Bail Bond
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 4:19-cv-00717-JST (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order that certain case deadlines
be extended from the operative case deadlines:
Event Prior Deadline Proposed
Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for class Oct. 30, 2024 Dec. 11,
2024
Certification, designation of
experts, and disclosure of
opening expert reports
Defendants' opposition to motion Jan. 29, 2025 Mar. 26,
2025
for class certification,
designation of rebuttal experts,
disclosure of rebuttal expert
reports, and Daubert motions to
exclude testimony in opening
expert reports
Plaintiffs' reply brief ISO Mar. 26, 2025 May 21, 2025
Class Certification, disclosure
of reply expert reports,
oppositions to Daubert motions
to exclude testimony in opening
expert reports, and Daubert
motions to exclude testimony
in rebuttal expert reports
Replies to oppositions to Apr. 25, 2025 June 20,
2025
Daubert motions to exclude
testimony in opening expert reports
Oppositions to Daubert motions May 23, 2025 July 21,
2025
to exclude testimony in rebuttal
expert reports
Replies to Oppositions to Jun. 23, 2025 Aug. 21, 2025
Daubert Motions to exclude
testimony in Rebuttal Expert
Reports
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kIS4v1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
Katherine Lubin Benson, Esq.
Michelle A. Lamy, Esq.
Miriam E. Marks, Esq.
Emily N. Harwell, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: dharvey@lchb.com
kbenson@lchb.com
mlamy@lchb.com
mmarks@lchb.com
eharwell@lchb.com
- and -
Benjamin David Elga, Esq.
JUSTICE CATALYST LAW
25 Broadway, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (518) 732-6703
E-mail: belga@justicecatalyst.org
- and -
Stephanie Carroll, Esq.
Ghirlandi Guidetti, Esq.
PUBLIC COUNSEL
610 South Ardmore Avenue
Los Angeles, CA, 90005
Telephone: (213) 385-2977
Facsimile: (213) 201-4722
E-mail: scarroll@publiccounsel.org
gguidetti@publiccounsel.org
- and -
Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
Jennifer S. Wagner, Esq.
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
7 Winthrop Square, Fourth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1245
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
Facsimile: (617) 542-8028
E-mail: skavanagh@nclc.org
jwagner@nclc.org
- and -
David Seligman, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
1410 High Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: david@towardsjustice.org
The Defendants are represented by:
Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
Michael A. Attanasio, Esq.
Timothy W. Cook, Esq.
Max Sladek de la Cal, Esq.
COOLEY LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY 10001
- and -
Julie A. Gryce, Esq.
Michael P. Murphy, Esq.
John Hamill, Esq.
Michael Pullos, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Telephone: (619) 699-2700
E-mail: julie.gryce@dlapiper.com
michael.murphy@dlapiper.com
John.hamill@us.dlapiper.com
Michael.pullos@us.dlapiper.com
- and -
Darryl Anderson, Esq.
Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 651-5562
E-mail: darryl.anderson@nortonrosefulbright.com
joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
John P. Marino, Esq.
Kristen Wenger, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
1301 Riverplace Boulevard, 10th Floor
Jacksonville, FL
Telephone: (904) 792 8925
E-mail: john.marino@rivkin.com
kristen.wenger@rivkin.com
- and -
Anne K. Edwards, Esq.
SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 358-7210
E-mail: aedwards@sgrlaw.com
- and -
David F. Hauge, Esq.
Todd H. Stitt, Esq.
Vincent S. Loh, Esq.
MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
- and -
W. Scott Croft, Esq.
DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP
101 S. Fifth Street, 3500 PNC Tower
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (502) 587-3758
E-mail: scott.croft@dentons.com
- and -
Spencer Y. Kook, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476
Telephone: (213) 680-2800
Facsimile: (213) 614-7399
E-mail: skook@hinshawlaw.com
- and -
Gary A. Nye, Esq.
ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI,
LLP
5900 Canoga Ave UNIT 450
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
- and -
Brendan Pegg, Esq.
Lindsay Cooper-Greene, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRENDAN PEGG CORPORATION
201 E. Ojai Avenue #1505
Ojai, CA 93024
Telephone: (805) 302-4151
E-mail: brendan@bpegglaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 551-7521
E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
- and -
John Sebastinelli, Esq.
Howard Holderness, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
101 Second Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94105-3668
Telephone: (415) 650-1300
E-mail: sebastinellij@gtlaw.com
holdernessh@gtlaw.com
DANRIE LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DANRIE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01016 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://shopdanrie.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.
Danrie LLC is a baby and children's boutique specializing in
apparel, toys, gear, and gifts hand-picked from all over the world.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
DARREN INDYKE: Bensky Seeks Leave to File Reply Under Partial Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bensky et al., v. Indyke
et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01204-AS (S.D.N.Y.), Plaintiff Jane Doe 3
seeks leave to file under partial seal reply in support of motion
for class certification, and entirely under seal exhibits A-M to
the plaintiff's reply in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiff's reply in support of Plaintiff's motion for class
certification includes references to victim-identifying
information, and other documents designated as confidential by
Defendants or non-party HBRK. Partial sealing is warranted pursuant
to the Court’s Pseudonym Orders, and the parties' Protective
Order, in this case.
Exhibit M provides excerpts of the deposition of Plaintiff Jane Doe
3. Keeping Exhibit M under seal is necessary because the
information would threaten to identify the client (who is protected
by both the Court's Feb. 23, 2024, Order, and the Protective Order.
Courts have granted sealing requests to protect the identities of
victims of sex trafficking, and the victims in this case, including
Jane Doe 3, have a legitimate privacy interest in maintaining their
anonymity if they so choose.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7sVcQ5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Sigrid McCawley, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
55 Hudson Yards
New York, NY
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
E-mail: @bsfllp.com
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC: Adams Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBRA M. ADAMS, DANILLIE
L. MARS, MICHELLE L. MILLER and ANITA W. DAME, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK
CLINIC, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC, THE
ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF
DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK CLINIC and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No.
1:22-cv-00099-LM (D.N.H.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court, pursuant
to FED. R. CIV. P. 23, for an Order:
-- certifying the proposed class defined as:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan,
at
any time between March 18, 2016 through the date of judgment
(the
"Class Period")";
-- appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed
class;
-- and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class.
Dartmouth-Hitchcock provides primary and specialty care.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UC98Vz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
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
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
DOOBIEZ LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOOBIEZ LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07861 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) is a civil action
against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.doobiez.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, and the New York State Civil Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access Defendant's
website around August 15, 2024, from her home in New York County,
in an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, including their premium edible, "LEVEL Protab Sativa --
Tablets 10 Pack for $35." However, despite the website's apparent
thoroughness and transparency, Plaintiff encountered significant
accessibility barriers that prevented her from fully utilizing its
services, when she attempted to access the site by herself to
discover crucial information regarding the presence of any
contraindications therein.
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.
Doobiez LLC is a science-driven cannabis company at the forefront
of cannabinoid research and innovation that is exploring the
possibilities of effects-based cannabis products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
ELEVATED HERB: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELEVATED HERB LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07961 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024), arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on
Defendant's website in New York County. Accordingly, the Plaintiff
now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts
claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
New York City Human Rights Law, New York State Human Rights Law,
New York State Civil Rights Law, and for declaratory relief.
Elevated Herb LLC is a New Jersey Limited Liability company that
owns and maintains the website, https://elevated-herb.com, which
sells cannabis products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
EQUIFAX INFO: Sullivan Must File Class Cert Rely by Dec. 6
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Corinna Sullivan, v.
Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00061-JGZ-BGM
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Macdonald entered an order:
-- granting the parties' third joint Stipulation for extension of
Time;
-- extending the deadline for the parties' notice of compliance to
Oct. 18, 2024.
-- extending the deadline for the parties to complete expert
discovery to Oct. 29, 2024
-- extending the deadline for the Defendant to respond to
Plaintiff's
motion for class certification to Nov. 12, 2024, and that
The Plaintiff shall have until Dec. 6, 2024, to file her reply.
The dispositive motion deadline is extended to Dece. 9, 2024, that
dispositive motion responses shall be due on or before Jan. 3,
2025.
The dispositive motion replies shall be due on or before Jan. 17,
2025.
Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ewBXCK at no extra
charge.[CC]
ERCOLE USA: Cheley Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT CHELEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ERCOLE USA, LLC, D/B/AFBS FORTIFIED
ANDBALLISTIC SECURITY, ERCOLE USA, LLC, D/B/ A FBS FORTIFIED AND
BALLISTIC SECURITY, FBS SYSTEMS, INC., and DAVID VRANICAR,
individually, and in his official capacity, FBS SYSTEMS, INC., and
DAVID VRANICAR, individually, and in his official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. CACE-24-014863 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial,
Broward Cty., October 16, 2024) is an action arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Florida Statutes for Defendants' failure to
pay proper wages and retaliatory conduct.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed and refused to
pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation, equal to one and one-half
times his regular hourly rate. The Defendants also took adverse
action against Plaintiff by terminating his employment shortly
after his wage complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately June
2023 to June 2024 as an installation technician for custom doors
and windows.
Ercole USA, LLC is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
installing customized fortified security doors and windows.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walwin Lee Taylor, Esq.
WLT LAW FIRM, PLLC
261 N. University Dr., Suite 500
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 905-9863
Facsimile: (954) 827-9361
ERIC OLSON: Court Narrows Claims in Cunningham Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL CUNNINGHAM, v.
COLONEL ERIC T. OLSON, Case No. 6:23-cv-03076-RK (W.D. Mo.), the
Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order that Olson's motion
to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim is
granted as to Count Three and is denied in all other respects.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a
claim for disclosure of erroneous information sufficient to support
his 18 U.S.C. section 925A claim against Colonel Olson.
The case is an action challenging Colonel Eric T. Olson's retention
and dissemination of expunged felony convictions in the Missouri
State Highway Patrol's Criminal History Repository on behalf of
Plaintiff Michael Cunningham and a putative class.
The Plaintiff alleges that Colonel Olson's acts or omissions
violate his constitutional rights and the Brady Handgun Violence
Protection Act ("Brady Act").
The Plaintiff also individually asserts a claim pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983 for Colonel Olson's failure to train and
violation of the Second Amendment based upon Plaintiff's unlawful
arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EBgJFM at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Bryant Sues Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
BRITTON BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS a/k/a FIDELITY
BROKERAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12653 (D.
Mass., October 18, 2024), arises out of the data breach that
occurred between August 17, 2024 and August 19, 2024.
According to the complaint, Fidelity informed attorney generals in
several states on or about October 9, 2024 that its computer
systems were hacked by a third party, who established two customer
accounts which they used to obtain images of documents pertaining
to Fidelity customers from an internal database. The hackers
intentionally attacked Fidelity to unlawfully access the highly
sensitive, confidential, and personal information of over 77,000
Fidelity customers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for
Fidelity's failure to protect his and other customers' personally
identifiable information.
Headquartered in Boston, MA, Fidelity is an investment firm that
provides, among other things, financial planning, advice, and
educational resources to help investors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
MAZOW MCCULLOUGH PC
10 Derby Square, 4th
Salem, MA 01970
Telephone: (978) 744-8000
Facsimile: (978) 744-8012
E-mail: mcf@helpinginjured.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
FITON INC: Discloses Clients' Info to 3rd Parties, Hoffman Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
AVA HOFFMAN, SHANTE PIERRO, and DANIELA ZAMOR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FITON, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09105 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for violations of Video
Privacy Protection Act and the California Information Privacy Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to
unrelated third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly
known as Facebook, Inc., Amplitude, and Braze, the personally
identifiable information (PII) and video viewing information of its
app and website visitors, including the Plaintiffs. Specifically,
the Defendant disclosed personal information such as users' full
names, email addresses, and videos that they viewed. The Defendant
disclosed PII and confidential communications to Amplitude, Braze,
and Meta so they can help with its marketing, advertising, and
analytics. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and
the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the
suit.
FitOn, Inc. is a digital wellness platform company, with its
principal place of business in West Hollywood, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
FORCE FACTOR: Mendez Sues Over Mislabeled Dietary Supplements
-------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORCE FACTOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-02236 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 21, 2024) alleges violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and
False Advertising Law.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant makes,
distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of dietary
supplements under the brand name Force Factor. However, the
Defendant deceptively labels certain of its Force Factor products
by misrepresenting the dosage amount of each capsule, tablet,
softgel, or gummy. Specifically, the front labels of the Force
Factor Products prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for
example, "10 mg Melatonin." The front labels also advertise the
number of capsules, tablets, softgels, or gummies included in each
Product.
The truth, however, is that each capsule does not contain the
advertised dosage amount. Instead, each capsule, tablet, softgel,
or gummy contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage and
consumers must ingest two or more capsules to achieve the
advertised dosage. As a result, consumers grossly overpay for the
Products, receiving only half, a third, a quarter, or a fifth of
the advertised value while paying the full purchase price, says the
suit.
Force Factor, LLC manufactures and supplies nutritional and dietary
supplements, immunity boosters, and prebiotic products. [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
FORD MOTOR: Breshears Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Breshears, and all
others similarly situated, v. Ford, John Doe, et al., Case No.
4:24-cv-00872-KGB (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l8daWk at no extra
charge.[CC]
FRANKLIN SPORTS: Miller et al. Sue Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRANKLIN SPORTS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01003 (W.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New York State Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Defendant' website,
https://franklinsports.com, including on November 9, 2023 and the
last occurring on September 30, 2024, in an attempt to purchase
Powerstrap Chrome Batting Gloves 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 and full and equal access to the goods
and services offered to the public and made available to the
public, says the suit.
Franklin Sports, Inc. operates the Franklin Sports online retail
store, as well as the Franklin Sports interactive website,
https://franklinsports.com, which offers goods and services
including information about Defendant's: official Major League
Baseball's gear, sports equipment, apparel and accessories for
baseball, football, soccer, hockey and pickleball. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GENERAC POWER: Dawson & Hill Sue Over Undisclosed Generator Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES W. DAWSON JR. and EDMOND C. HILL, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GENERAC
POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and GENERAC HOLDINGS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-02412-KKM-LSG (M.D. Fla., October 18, 2024) arises from
Generac's concealment of, and failure to disclose a latent defect
that accelerates the wear and deterioration of critical parts
associated with the alternator of its 22kW and 24kW models of
Standby Generator product series.
Despite possessing exclusive knowledge of the defect and resulting
failures of the Class Generators, Generac repeatedly concealed or
failed to disclose the latent Defect to Plaintiffs and the putative
class members. To date, Generac has failed to offer a permanent and
reliable remedy for the said defect. In addition, there is no
indication that Generac will replace its defective products and
reimburse consumers who have paid for repairs or replaced their
generators affected by the defect, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' unlawful
and conduct and assert claims for breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment or misrepresentation, negligence, and for violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.
Headquartered in Waukesha, WI, Generac designs, manufactures, and
sells a wide range of power supply products, including portable,
residential, commercial and industrial generators. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reginald J. Clyne, Esq.
Chanelle Artiles, Esq.
Gabriel C. Sanchez, Esq.
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
9300 S. Dadeland Blvd., 4th Floor
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 670-1101
Facsimile: (305) 670-1161
E-mail: rclyne.pleadings@qpwblaw.com
reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com
chanelle.artiles@qpwblaw.com
GENERAL DATATECH: Faces Chappell Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CHAPPELL, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs,
and the Class, Plaintiff v. GENERAL DATATECH, L.P., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07839 (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2024) seeks to recover
damages from Defendants for: (1) unpaid regular and overtime wages,
(2) liquidated damages, (3) statutory penalties for failing to
provide wage notices, and (4) statutory penalties for failing to
provide wage statements in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff performed work for GDT as a Senior Telecommunications
Technician on "public works" sites in Bronx, New York from July
2020 to July 2022.
The Plaintiff alleges, that he and Class Members, as third party
beneficiaries to applicable public works contracts are entitled to
(1) unpaid prevailing wages, (2) supplemental benefits, (3) pay at
time-and-one-half for shifts worked exceeding 8 hours in duration,
(4) pay at time-and-one-half for shifts worked on holidays, and (5)
additional pay due for shift differential payments, in accordance
with applicable schedules set forth by the Comptroller for the City
of New York. Alternatively, the Plaintiff alleges that he and Class
Members are entitled to restitution and other applicable damages
based on unjust enrichment and/or quantum meruit.
The Plaintiff further alleges that he and Subclass Members are
entitled to unpaid bonuses required to be paid pursuant to New York
State Health Care and Mental Hygiene Workers Act for "frontline"
work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
General Datatech, L.P. is an global information technology
solutions and systems integration company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taimur Alamgir, Esq.
TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
315 Main Street, Second Floor
Huntington, NY 11743
Telephone: (914) 552-2669
E-mail: tim@talegalgroup.com
GENERAL MILLS: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Senior Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MILAGROS SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07978 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 20, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://epicprovisions.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.
General Mills, Inc. operates as a food company. The Company
manufactures and markets branded processed consumer foods sold
through retail stores. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Cleary Sues Over Data Security Failures
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY M. CLEARY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02953 (D.D.C.,
October 18, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly
valuable, protected personal and academic information, failure to
comply with regulations and industry standards to protect
information systems that contain personally identifiable
information and unlawful disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII.
On October 17, 2024, the Plaintiff received a notification email
from the Defendant's Chief Information Officer, alerting her that
her sensitive personally identifiable and academic information had
been compromised in the data breach that occurred between the hours
of 8 a.m. on Wednesday, October 16, to 8:30 a.m. on Thursday,
October 17, 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring
claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, and unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Georgetown University is a private research university in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christian Levis, Esq.
Peter Demato, Esq.
Radhika Gupta, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com pdemato@lowey.com
rgupta@lowey.com
- and -
Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
One Tower Bridge
100 Front Street, Suite 520
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (215) 399-4770
E-mail: achristina@lowey.com
GLOCK INC: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Johnson Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLOCK, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class in the lawsuit
entitled Steven C. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glock, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-08807-WHO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for the conduct of
designing, manufacturing and marketing defective handguns, in
violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the California Business &
Professions Code.
On Oct. 12, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On Feb. 23, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to strike the
declaration of Colin B. Weir.
On Sept. 30, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class through an Order entered by Judge William H. Orrick.
The Defendants' motion to strike was denied. The Court ruled that
the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements for class certification.
On Oct. 8, 2024, Judge Orrick granted in part a motion to seal the
Class Certification Order.
The appellate case is captioned Steven C. Johnson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Glock,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-6267, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 16, 2024.
[BN]
Defendants-Petitioners GLOCK, INC., et al. are represented by:
Paul G. Cereghini, Esq.
Carissa A. Casqlari, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200
San Jose, CA 95110
- and -
John F. Renzulli, Esq.
Christopher Renzulli, Esq.
Howard B. Schilsky, Esq.
RENZULL1 LAW FIRM, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 1005
White Plains, NY 10601
- and -
Donald M. Falk, Esq.
SCHAERR | JAFFE LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 562-4942
Email: dfalk@schaerr-jaffe.com
- and -
Joshua J. Prince, Esq.
Justin A. Miller, Esq.
Aaron Gordon, Esq.
SCHAERR | JAFFE LLP
1717 K. Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing in Carder Due Jan. 17, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLIE CARDER et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GRACO
CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00137-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an amended scheduling order
as follows:
Event Deadline
Close of Expert Discovery: Dec. 13, 2024
Motions for Class Certification, Motions Jan. 17, 2025
for Summary Judgment, and Daubert Motions
Opening Briefs:
Class Certification, Summary Judgment, Feb. 14, 2025
and Daubert Motions Responsive Briefs
Class Certification, Summary Judgment, and Feb. 28, 2025
Daubert Motions Reply Briefs:
Hearing on Class Certification, Summary To be scheduled at
Judgment, and Daubert Motions convenience of the
Court, if
necessary
Graco is an American baby products company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nGLVTv at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRYPHON HEALTHCARE: Cortez Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA CORTEZ and DELARIA CORTEZ, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GRYPHON HEALTHCARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-03949 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2024) is
a class action against Gryphon for its failure to properly secure
and safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated individuals'
personally identifiable information and protected health
information from criminal hackers.
On or about October 11, 2024, Gryphon filed an official notice of a
hacking incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General. The
Defendant launched an investigation, which revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain files that contained
sensitive information belonging to its clients' patients, including
Plaintiffs.
The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
identities are now at risk because of Gryphon's negligent conduct
as the private information that Gryphon collected and maintained is
now in the hands of data thieves and other unauthorized third
parties.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class,
assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and
declaratory judgment.
Gryphon Healthcare, LLC based in Houston, Texas, is a revenue cycle
and management services company that serves healthcare service
providing clients and their patients nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
HARBORVIEW HEALTH: Conditional Class Cert Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delk v. Harborview Health
Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04269 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June 17,
2024), the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification to renewal in light of the anticipated future filing
of the motion and memorandum consistent with the Court's bundling
rule.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Harborview specializes in cardiac management, on-site dialysis,
dementia care, personalized and rehabilitation services.[CC]
I.C. SYSTEM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEZARK v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403 (W.D. Pa., Filed March 20, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting
motion to extend time to file opposition to class certification.
In its motion, the Defendant asks for a 10-day extension of time to
file its response to the pending motion to certify class filed by
the Plaintiff Lezark.
Accordingly, the Defendant shall file its response to the motion on
or before Nov. 8, 2024.
The Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, shall be filed on or before
Nov. 15, 2024.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
IC System is a debt recovery agency.[CC]
INVAPHARM INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Morales Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
KENIA BELTRAN MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INVAPHARM, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV27498 (Cal.
Super, Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 21, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Morales was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Innoviva, Inc. is a healthcare focused asset management company.
The Company intends to participate in the development,
commercialization and financial management of bio-pharmaceuticals.
[BN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen Feghali, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, PC
725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
Email: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
JERSEY ROOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Competello Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. JERSEY ROOTS DISPENSARY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07960
(S.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website,
www.jerseyrootsdispensary.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access the Defendant's
Website around Oct. 12, 2024, from her home in New York County, in
an effort to search for and purchase Defendant's products and
services, including their premium edible, "Super Silver Haze RSO
Capsules | Botanist | 10pk/100mg."
The Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility barriers that
prevented her from fully utilizing its services, when she attempted
to access the site by herself to discover crucial information
regarding the presence of any contraindications. This has not only
limited her ability to make informed decisions but also infringed
on her rights as a consumer and individual with a disability, the
suit asserts.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks a 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 consumers.
Ms. Competello is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using her computer.
Jersey Roots offers a wide selection of cannabis products,
including flowers, vapes, edibles, and concentrates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
JOHN HARDY: Violates FTSA's Caller ID Rules, Figueroa Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated V. JOHN HARDY USA, INC., Case No. CACE-24-015037
(Fla. Cir., Oct. 18, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act's Caller ID Rules by
transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone
calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message.
The Defendant transmitted 844-641-1440 to the Plaintiff's Cell
Phone's caller identification service when it made the John Hardy
Text Message Sales Calls. The Plaintiff called 844-641-1440 and the
call could not be completed, the suit claims.
As such, with each John Hardy Text Message Advertisement, the
Defendant transmitted a telephone number to the Caller ID Service
of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that was not capable of
receiving telephone calls, as explicitly required by the FTSA's
Caller ID Rules, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated, seeks injunctive relief to ensure the Defendant
complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes John Hardy Text
Message Sales Calls.
Ms. Figueroa is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and she resides
in Florida.
John Hardy retails jewelries and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202)709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
KIRA LABS: Competello Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COMPETELLO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIRA LABS INC.; ICONIC PET LLC; AND MEDPEEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07941 (S.D.N.Y., October 18, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights
Law, and the New York Human Rights Law.
Plaintiff Competello alleges that the Defendants failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website,
www.kiralabs.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendants' websites contain access barriers that Plaintiff
encountered and have caused a denial of her full and equal access
multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular
basis from accessing the Defendant's websites, says the suit.
Kira Labs Inc. is a Florida corporation which owns and maintains
the website which offers a diverse range of brands catering to
various consumer needs including ICONIC PET LLC and MEDPEEL, each
of whom owns and maintains the following websites,
www.iconicpet.com and www.medpeel.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
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
LANDIS TECHNOLOGIES: Bankston & Robinson Sue Over Rent-to-Own Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tangela Bankston and Tiffany Robinson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Landis
Technologies, Inc. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05546 (E.D.
Pa., October 18, 2024) accuses the Defendants of operating and
conspiring to operate a fraudulent residential, rent-to-own
enterprise in violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and asserts claims for violations of the Credit
Repair Organizations Act and for violations of state laws.
According to the complaint, Landis "Pathway to Homeownership"
program is a rent-to-own scheme that purports to guide aspiring
homeowners through a process in which Landis purchases a property
"for them," allows them to move into "their" property immediately
as supposedly transitional renters, provides them with credit
"coaching" to make them mortgage-qualified during the course of the
lease term and helps them "save" funds toward the future purchase
of the property from Landis at the end of the lease. However,
Landis is allegedly operating a scheme in which aspiring first-time
home-buyers who are not mortgage-qualified are led to believe they
have been brought onto a specially designed home-purchase
"pathway," says the suit.
Headquartered in New York City, Landis Technologies, Inc. offers
clients to choose dream homes and rent it while they get ready for
a mortgage. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
John J. Grogan, Esq.
Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.
David A. Nagdeman, Esq.
LANGER, GROGAN & DIVER P.C.
1717 Arch St., Ste 4020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-5660
E-mail: iackelsberg@langergrogan.com
jgrogan@langergrogan.com
mroper@langergrogan.com
dnagdeman@langergrogan.com
LIFE HOME: Faces Chae Suit Over Home Health Aides' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY SEAN CHAE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE HOME CARE INC., YEONG SOON IM, and
SOPHIA LEE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01829 (E.D. Va., October
16, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime
compensation of Plaintiff and similarly situated under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Virginia Wage Payment Act, and the Virginia
Minimum Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and those similarly situated one and a half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. The Company
caused Plaintiff and those similarly situated to work substantial
overtime hours, a common occurrence for the home healthcare
industry, without proper compensation under the FLSA at the
direction of Mr. Im and Ms. Lee, the Company's purported
shareholders, and the former being the only listed director.
The Plaintiff was a former employee of the Company as a Home Health
Aide and/or Personal Care Assistant from October 7, 2022 through
November 27, 2022, and resigned as a result of Defendants' alleged
failure to properly compensate Plaintiff for overtime.
Life Home Care Inc. is a home health care agency that provides
in-home health care services and related personal care assistant
services for adults primarily in the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Powers, Esq.
Tyler Roth, Esq.
MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
3160 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 410
Falls Church, VA 22042
Telephone: (703) 520-1326
E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com
troth@mcplegal.com
mmurawiec@mcplegal.com
LONG ISLAND: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Kakish Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL KAKISH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LONG ISLAND PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, P.C. D/B/A NEW YORK
PLASTIC SURGICAL GROUP, Case No. 1:24-cv-07341 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 18,
2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect highly sensitive
data from a data breach that occurred between Jan. 4, 2024, and
Jan, 8, 2024.
Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, the following types of
PII/PHI were compromised: full names, Social Security numbers,
dates of birth, driver's license numbers, state identification
numbers, passport numbers, financial account information, credit
card numbers, debit card numbers, health insurance policy
information, biometric information, medical information, and
clinical photographs, the Plaintiff says.
In total, the Defendant injured at least 161,707 persons—via the
exposure of their PII/PHI—in the Data Breach. These 161,707
persons include its current and former patients, the suit claims.
And yet, the Defendant waited over until Oct. 4, 2024, before it
began notifying the class—a full 274 days after the Data Breach
began.
The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from
the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity
theft—all because Defendant's Data Breach placed Plaintiff's
PII/PHI right in the hands of criminals, the suit asserts.
Mr. Kakish is a current patient of Defendant—having received
medical services since 2021.
New York Plastic was founded in April 1948 and is the oldest and
largest private academic plastic surgery practice in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. 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 -
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge St. Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
LOS COMPADRES: Caballero Seeks Certification of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMAS CABALLERO and KEVIN
AGUILAR VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. LOS COMPADRES LIQUOR STORE, INC., a Colorado
corporation, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01569-PAB-MDB (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
a) granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion and stipulation for
certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
Action and Notice to Collective consisting of:
"All store clerks and/or retail associates holding comparable
positions with different titles employed by the Defendants and
paid on an hourly basis in Colorado from June 5, 2021 to
present,
plus any period of tolling";
b) approving the proposed mailed and electronic Notice and
Consent
forms;
c) requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' Counsel with a
list
of the Collective members, with personal contact information,
within 14 days of this Court's Order;
d) concurrent with the production of the list of Putative Class
members, requiring Defendants to provide a certification, via
declaration, as to the accuracy and completeness of the
Collective contact list;
e) approving the proposed Opt-In schedule; and
f) for such other relief requested herein and as the Court deems
appropriate under the circumstances.
On June 5, 2024, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated employees of Defendants, filed their claims for unpaid
overtime wages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
On September 23, 2024, Plaintiffs sought leave to file their First
Amended Complaint. The Court granted the Motion and directed the
clerk to accept the First Amended Complaint.
The Defendants include LOS COMPADRES LIQUOR STORE LLC, a Colorado
limited liability company, LOS COMPADRES LIQUOR STORE 2 LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, LOS COMPADRES LIQUOR #2 LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, LOS COMPADRES SMOKE SHOP LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, SPEEDY'S SMOKE SHOP #2 LLC, a
Colorado limited liability company, YESENIA ALFARO, individually,
and CARMEN GARCIA, individually.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PYCXg6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
LEVENTHAL | LEWIS
KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC
3773 Cherry Creek North Drive, Suite 710
Denver, CO 80209
Telephone: (720) 699-3000
Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
E-mail: sengelson@ll.law
MANITOU EQUIPMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 22, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ERNSTER, et al.,
v. MANITOU EQUIPMENT AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00462-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor
entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows:
1. Amendments to the pleadings: Dec. 13, 2024
2. Plaintiffs' deadline to file Aug. 22, 2025
motions & briefs to certify/
decertify classes and serve
class certification expert
disclosures:
3. Defendants' deadline to file Sept. 19, 2025
any opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for class certification,
serve class certification expert
disclosures, and file any motion(s)
challenging plaintiffs' class
certification experts:
4. Plaintiffs' deadline to file any Oct. 17, 2025.
reply in support of motion for
class certification and any rebuttal
to defendants' motion(s) challenging
plaintiffs' experts and file any
motion(s) challenging defendants'
experts:
5. Defendants' deadline to file any Nov. 14, 2025
rebuttal to plaintiffs' motion(s)
challenging defendants' experts:
6. Disclosure of liability experts: Jan. 19, 2026
7. First Final Pretrial Conference: Sept. 29, 2026
Manitou is a heavy equipment manufacturer that makes forklifts,
cherry pickers, telehandlers, and other heavy equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aeyuZM at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARK CUBAN: Briefing Order for Class Cert. Vacated in Robertson
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robertson, et al., v. Mark
Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 10,
2022), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order:
-- granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to vacate and to set
a
briefing schedule for supplemental briefing on231 plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and
-- vacating the Order for Briefing for Class Certification.
The Defendant shall supplementally respond to the motion for class
certification by Oct. 31, 2024.
The Plaintiff shall supplementally reply by Nov. 15, 2024.
The nature of suit states securities fraud.
Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality.
He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the
Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association, co-owner
of 2929 Entertainment, and was one of the main "sharks" on the ABC
reality.[CC]
MC2 DATA: Jones Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MC2 DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-61978-DSL (S.D. Fla., October 22, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and
the California Consumer Records 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
computer systems following a data breach discovered on or around
August 7, 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, the suit
says.
MC2 Data, LLC is a background check company, with its principal
place of business in Tamarac, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq.
JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC
478 E. Altamonte Dr., Suite 108-570
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 720-4057
Facsimile: (407) 612-2206
Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
MEDIBASE GROUP: Barbaria Seeks to Stay Class Cert Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN BARBARIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
MEDIBASE GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03239-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order suspending or staying
the requirement for motion for class certification pending the
submission of a proposed case management report and the court's
entry of a case management order.
The Plaintiff submits a proposed order for the Court's
consideration.
This request to suspend or toll the deadline is made in good faith
and not for the purposes of undue delay or obfuscation. No prior
extensions of time have been sought or obtained for this deadline.
The Plaintiff anticipates that at the Rule 26(f) meeting counsel
will propose a revised class certification briefing schedule to the
submitted to the Court for review and approval.
The Plaintiff filed her class action complaint on July 23, 2024.
The Plaintiff's requirements under Rule 23 cannot be satisfied with
a skeletal, perfunctory motion for class certification.
Medibase provides software solutions, technical assistance, and
business office solutions to hospitals.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X2QfXh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
- and -
Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
DUDLEY LAW, LLC
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (404) 687-8205
MERRILL LYNCH: Opening Briefs in Valelly Class Suit Due Nov. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALELLY, v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order denying
the Plaintiff's request to file a motion for class certification
either preceding or concurrently with the cross-motions for summary
judgment.
-- Further, the Court does not require pre-motion letters nor a
conference. The summary judgment schedule is as follows:
-- Opening briefs must be filed by no later than Nov. 27, 2024.
-- Oppositions must be filed by no later than Jan. 10, 2025.
-- Replies must be filed by no later than Jan. 24, 2025.
Accordingly, Plaintiff proposes that the parties promptly file
opening and responsive "pre-motion letters" regarding summary
judgment, and that a conference be scheduled to solicit the Court's
view on the prospective motions, with the objective of avoiding
unnecessary briefing.
Merrill Lynch is an American investment management and wealth
management division of Bank of America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WspvDO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Adam J. Blander, Esq.
WOLF POPPER LLP
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 759-4600
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq.
Cristina M. Rincon, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-400
MMS GROUP: Bid to File Torres Medical Records Under Seal OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elewood Torres, v. MMS
Group LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the
Defendants' motion to file Plaintiff's medical records under seal.
The Defendants may also redact any reference to those medical
records contained in their memorandum of law.
The Defendants are directed to file a redacted version of their
memorandum of law and exhibits on ECF.
MMS provides property management and related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ax7ULH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin G. Donoghue, Esq.
ARFUNKEL WILD, P.C.
111 Great Neck Road
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 393-2535
Facsimile: (516) 466-5964
E-mail: kdonoghue@garfunkelwild.com
MODERNIZE INC: Robertson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIN ROBERTSON, individually and on behalf of classes of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. MODERNIZE, INC., Case
No. 1:24-cv-01077-DII (W.D. Tex., Sept. 11, 2024) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited telemarketing calls to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
To generate leads, Modernize makes telemarketing calls to consumers
who have never had a relationship with them and who have never
consented to receive their calls. The Plaintiff's telephone number,
(XXX) XXX-4337, is used for personal residential purposes only. The
Plaintiff's telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not
Call Registry since 2023. Despite this, the Defendant placed more
than 5 telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff from telephone numbers
(775) 277-3179, the lawsuit alleges.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff never provided her consent or requested
these calls. The Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been
harmed by the acts of Defendant because their privacy has been
violated, they were annoyed and harassed, added the lawsuit.
Modernize provides home improvement services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leland Garrett McRae, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LELAND MCRAE
1150 N. Loop 1604 W, Ste. 108-461
San Antonio, TX 78248
Telephone: (248) 420-4042
Facsimile: (210) 493-6080
E-mail: leland@lelandmcrae.com
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Pace Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN PACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-at-00857 (E.D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2024) is a class action arising
from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of sensitive
information in the possession and custody and/or control of
Defendant (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's failure
to timely detect and report the Data Breach made its patients
vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their
financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of
their Sensitive Information.
The Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the
Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach
and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII and PHI misuse. In
failing to adequately protect Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive
Information, failing to adequately notify them about the breach,
and by obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated
state and federal law and harmed an unknown number of its current
and former patients, says the suit.
Omni Family Health is a growing network providing primary and
preventative healthcare located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and
Fresno counties. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
OUTSET MEDICAL: Plymouth Sues Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUTSET MEDICAL,
INC.; LESLIE TRIGG; REBECCA CHAMBERS; and NABEEL AHMED, Defendants,
Case No. 5:24-cv-07267 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Outset securities between September
15, 2020, and August 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period")
against the Defendants seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations and prospects.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
(1) the TabloCart would require prior 510(k) clearance from the FDA
for marketing authorization; (2) the Company had not obtained the
required FDA clearance to market and sell the TabloCart; (3) as
such, Outset would be forced to halt shipment of the TabloCart; (4)
Outset had promoted continuous renal replacement therapy (or CRRT)
as a modality within the FDA-approved indications for the Tablo,
which was not the case; (5) Outset lacked the sales team and
process to execute on the ramp of Tablo sales; (6) the Company's
internal controls were inadequate and resulted in the improper
marketing of Tablo and TabloCart and that the Company's SOX
certifications were false and misleading when made; (7) the
Company's reports and financial statements did not fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition, including the
reliance on improper marketing, that the revenue and growth
reported therein was the result of undisclosed, illicit and
unsustainable improper marketing; and (8) 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.
The Company's share price fell $2.33, or 68.5 percent, to close at
$1.07 per share on August 8, 2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Outset Medical, Inc. provides medical technology. The Company
develops a hemodialysis system for kidney patients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
Michael Dark, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
425 California Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
Email: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
mdark@bermantabacco.com
PAC HOUSING: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 23, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, et al. V. PAC
HOUSING GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ashe entered an order extending and
setting certain class certification deadlines.
Item Deadline
Motion to Certify Class (file and serve Jan. 23, 2025
deadline):
Submission/Hearing Date: March 20, 2025
Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Feb. 20, 2025
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Certify Feb. 28, 2025
Class (without leave of court):
Class Expert Disclosure Cutoff: Nov. 15, 2025
Class Expert Deposition Cutoff: Dec. 13, 2025
PAC Housing Group is a real estate company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YI1bM3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS: Class Settlement in Stanley Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA STANLEY, and JUDY
KOJETIN, v. PANORAMA ORTHOPEDICS AND SPINE CENTER, P.C., and PMG
LLLP, Case No. 1:22-cv-01176-RM-SBP (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Prose entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for
final approval of class and collective action and for final
approval of settlement agreement effective Aug. 5, 2024.
Further, and also effective Aug. 5, 2024, the court: (1) issues
final certification of the class; (2) appoints attorney Brandt
Milstein as class counsel and Sabrina Stanley and Judy Kojetin as
class representatives; (3) approves the proposed Settlement
Agreement; and (4) grants class counsel's Unopposed Motion for
Attorney Fee.
Finally, it is recommended that the court dismiss this action with
prejudice and direct the Clerk of Court to close this case, with
the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement
Agreement.
The court finds that the parties have made sufficient reasonable
efforts and issued the best practicable notice under the
circumstances. The notice therefore satisfies both Rule 23 and
procedural due process.
Accordingly, the court finds that a full consideration of the Rule
23(e) and Tenth Circuit factors demonstrates that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Panorama offers sports medicine, arthroscopy, spine, and joint
replacement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyMOso at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATAFOODS INC: Faces Vu Class Suit Over Smoothie Melts' False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA VU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PATAFOODS, INC. d/b/a Amara Organic Foods, Inc., Case
No. 8:24-cv-02265 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant's Amara Organic Smoothie Melts contain lead, cadmium, and
arsenic.
The suit says that the Products' packaging gives consumers the net
impression that the Products are healthy and do not contain toxic
heavy metals. The packaging displays large, realistic, and brightly
colored images of fresh fruit and includes statements such as:
"highest quality"; "You're already the best parent -- now you have
the snacks to prove it. "; and 'We believe parents' shouldn't have
to choose between nutrition and convenience. You -- and your child
-- deserve both."
However, heavy metal testing performed on the Mighty Sweet Greens
Flavor of Amara Organic Smoothie Melts has been recently published.
The test results revealed that the Products tested positive for
more than 35.1 ppb of lead, 101 ppb of cadmium, and 28.4 ppb of
arsenic, the Plaintiff contends.
A second round of testing found the Carrot Raspberry flavor of
Amara Organic Smoothie Melts contained 11 ppb of arsenic, 31 ppb of
cadmium, and 20 ppb of lead. These test results are applicable to
all the Products as they contain the same or similar ingredients
that are sourced from the same areas and the Products are packaged
in the same facility, the suit claims.
Lead affects numerous organs and systems in the body and
accumulates over time. This leads to health risks and toxicity,
including hindering neurological function, anemia, and kidney
damage.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action seeking redress for
the Defendant's false advertising and deceptive conduct on behalf
of all consumers in the United States.
Ms. Jessica Vu is a resident of Orange County, California. She
purchased the Products during the class period.
Patafoods is the manufacturer of various infant and toddler food
products, marked to parents of children between the ages of five
months to three years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
PNC BANK: Removes Melian Class Suit to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of NELLY MELIAN; and MICHAEL TREON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. PNC BANK, N.A.; DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
24STCV24262) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Oct. 21, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-09034. The case is assigned to Monica Ramirez
Almadani and referred to Magistrate Patricia Donahue.
PNC Bank, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank offers
saving and current account, investment, financial services, online
banking, mortgage, and non-mortgage loan facilities, as well as
issues credit card and business loans. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul W. Sweeney, Jr., Esq.
Cassidy T. Young, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 552-5000
Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
Email: paul.sweeney@klgates.com
cassidy.young@klgates.com
PRIME ASCOT: Fact Discovery in Leaser Class Suit Due July 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHA LEASER, ET AL., v.
PRIME ASCOT, L.P., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-02502-DJC-AC (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered a scheduling
order as follows:
-- Fact Discovery All fact discovery shall be July 31, 2025
completed no later than:
-- Expert Discovery The parties shall disclose Sept. 30, 2025
initial experts and produce reports in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class July 24, 2025
certification, shall be filed on or
before:
-- The final pretrial conference is set for: June 4, 2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vg9RFR at no extra
charge.[CC]
RADIO SYSTEMS: Hernandez Suit Seeks Leave to File Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN HERNANDEZ
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; v.
RADIO SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:22-cv-01861-JGB-DTB (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his
application for leave to file portions of the following documents
under seal:
(a) the Supplemental Declaration of Amber L. Schubert in Support
of
the Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and
(b) an associated Exhibit E.
These documents contain references to confidential and/or
proprietary information produced in discovery by the Defendant,
pursuant to the stipulated protective order.
The Plaintiff only seeks leave to file under seal those portions of
the Schubert Supplemental Declaration and exhibits that reference
documents that RSC or a nonparty designated as "CONFIDENTIAL."
The Plaintiff takes no position on whether these documents
ultimately satisfy the applicable standards to be permanently
sealed in this case
Radio Systems manufactures and retails pet supplies and
accessories.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U5Arci at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VINES v. REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00697 (M.D.N.C., Filed Aug. 19,
2024), the Hon. Judge Joe L. Webster entered an order terminating
the parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report:
-- The parties must submit an amended joint report that proposes a
bifurcated schedule which sets forth deadlines that will allow
for
completion of all discovery on class certification issues
within 6
months or shorter of the commencement of discovery.
While the Court is inclined to consider the parties' request to
bifurcate discovery, the Court will not permit a discovery schedule
with the first phase spanning approximately 9.5 months.
The nature of suit states diversity-torts to land.[CC]
RIVERSIDE, CA: Bid to Reset Class Cert Bid Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERSIDE ALL OF US OR
NONE, an unincorporated association; MELINDA FOBES, BRYAN YOST,
MARILU PAEZ, SHAWN YOST, all as individuals and on behalf of
similarly situated class representatives, v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE, and
LARRY V. GONZALEZ, in his official capacity as Chief of the
Riverside Police Department, Case No. 5:23-cv-01536-SPG-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order
denying, in part, the Plaintiffs' request to reset the time for
filing the motion for class certification:
1. No later than Friday, Oct. 25, 2024, the parties either in
person or via video conference shall meet and confer
meaningfully and in good faith about the issues identified in
the Request, Objection, and Judge Pym's Order:
a. Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendants in writing before
the
conference specific discovery requests identifying the BWC
footage they seek that allegedly displays the property
seizure practices relevant to their claims.
b. Plaintiffs shall also propose alternative dates for the
Defendants to depose the four individuals identified in
Defendants' Objection.
c. Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff in writing a date
certain when Defendants expect to produce the BWC footage
at
issue and any outstanding documents that are not in the
proper format.
2. The parties shall submit a joint status report no later than
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2024, briefly apprising the Court of the
Meeting's outcome, as well as setting forth the parties'
proposed deadline for filing of the motion for class
certification.
3. Counsel are reminded of their obligation to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court's standing
orders,
and the Central District of California Local Rules. Should
the
parties fail to do so or fail to comply with Judge Pym's
Order
and this Court's Orders above, the Court may issue an Order
to
Show Cause why sanctions should not be imposed on the
offending
party or parties and/or counsel. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Riverside is a city in and the county seat of Riverside County,
California, United States, in the Inland Empire metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M4oJ8q at no extra
charge.[CC]
SD PICKLEBALL: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SD PICKLEBALL DISTRIBUTION LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00997 (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 18, 2-24) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://prokennex.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.
SD Pickleball Distribution LLC manufactures racquet sports
equipment for tennis, squash, badminton, racquetball, and
pickleball. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SOLO FUNDS: Faces Class Action Over Loans' False, Deceptive Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rajashree Chakravarty of Banking Dive reports that Los
Angeles-based fintech SoLo Funds has been hit with a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging the firm misled consumers with false
advertising that claimed its loans have zero interest and no hidden
fees.
SoLo charged consumers interest and fees disguised as "tips" and
"donations," according to the class action filed in a federal court
in the central district of California last week by Danielle
Cofield. The complaint said that borrowers who receive loans incur
a tip fee, a donation fee, or both, which results in an exorbitant
total cost of credit that is not disclosed to the consumer.
"SoLo entices consumers to apply for loans through its platform by
falsely representing in its advertisements that a consumer could
obtain financing at zero interest," the lawsuit said.
During the loan application process, borrowers are prompted to
select a "tip fee" and encouraged to pay larger amounts as tips to
get funds. Additionally, borrowers are prompted to add on a
"donation fee" that goes directly to SoLo. The complaint noted that
the borrowers are not provided a way to opt out and move on to the
next page without selecting an amount to pay toward the donation
fee.
The lawsuit further alleges that SoLo obscures the method of opting
out of paying the donation fee by labeling it in another section of
its mobile application and fails to guide consumers on how to turn
off the donation fee option.
Though the "consumer-friendly alternative to high-cost, short-term
loans" platform provides those seeking loans with documents that
explain the amounts they owe and the costs of the loans, SoLo
doesn't clarify the fees that it will collect from borrowers, the
court document said.
The fintech issues loans ranging from $20 to $575, and borrowers
can select a single repayment date any time that is less than a
month after the loan is funded.
Cofield, an Ohio resident who has used the platform since 2021,
alleged SoLo Funds tried collecting payment on a $500 loan it never
funded. The plaintiff seeks class action certification to secure
monetary compensation for all affected class members, and to stop
the defendant from profiting from alleged unlawful practices and
prevent continued harm to class members. The plaintiff also
requested compensatory damages for the entire class and equitable
relief.
SoLo didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
SoLo, one of the few Black-owned fintechs, was founded in 2018 by
Rodney Williams and Travis Holoway in New York City. The company
said in May that it had saved consumers an estimated $40 million in
fees compared to subprime credit cards.
SoLo's lending practices have long been under scrutiny. Several
state regulators have fined SoLo over its tip and donation
features.
In July, Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry reached a
settlement with SoLo, following allegations that the fintech
violated the state's lending laws and engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices. Under the settlement, SoLo was ordered to pay
$158,000 in restitution, $25,000 in civil penalties, and more than
$25,000 in investigation charges. The firm was also required to
modify its business practices in the state and cease all collection
efforts.
In May, the Connecticut Department of Banking found that labeling
finance charges as "tips" violated state law, ordered reimbursement
of all fees to Connecticut borrowers, and imposed civil penalties.
SoLo agreed to pay $100,000 to the state's banking department,
which issued a cease-and-desist order.
The settlement with the Connecticut regulators followed resolutions
with regulators in California and Washington D.C. SoLo had to pay
$50,000 to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation in
California and $30,000 in restitution to D.C.'s regulator.
SoLo did not admit to any wrongdoing in any of the cases.
The fintech has also been on the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's radar, with a case ongoing since May. SoLo pointed out in
a statement following the issuance of the CFPB complaint that it
had been wrongly accused of misconduct "regarding its voluntary
tipping fee structure and peer-to-peer community finance model,"
with the tips going to community members. The company further said
it had engaged with the CFPB for over 18 months and nearly reached
an agreement before the unexpected lawsuit.
CEO Holoway said at the time that the lawsuit was "selective"
against minority innovators. He argued that his company was created
to address financial inequalities in underserved communities
through innovation, but enforcement actions worsen the wealth gap
rather than protect consumers.
"It's important to note that this call for innovation has stemmed
from a long history of predatory practices and products that have
disproportionately impacted low- to middle-class communities,"
Holoway said in May. "Ironically enough, regulators have provided
clear licensing frameworks for the products that harm consumers
most today, such as subprime credit cards and payday loans." [GN]
SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT: Whipple's Bid for Class Cert Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Curtis Whipple, on behalf
of the Southern Freight Lines Retirement Savings Program, himself,
and all others similarly situated, v. Southeastern Freight Lines,
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-04583-SAL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Sherri
Lydon entered an order denying Whipple's motion to amend, and
granting in part Whipple's motion for class certification, as
follows:
1. The court certifies the class, which is defined as
"all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Southeastern Savings Plan at any time between Jan. 1, 2018,
and the present."
2. Plaintiff Curtis Whipple is appointed as class
representative.
3. The attorneys of Morgan & Morgan, P.A., Wenzel Fenton
Cabassa,
P.A., and McKay Law, LLC, who have entered their appearances
in
this action are appointed class counsel under Rule 23(g),
FRCP.
Whipple has thus established he can maintain a class action under
either Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or Rule 23(b)(1)(B).
Plaintiff Curtis Whipple is a former employee of defendant
Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. who currently participates in
Southeastern Freight's Retirement Savings Program (the "Plan").
He alleges Southeastern Freight breached its fiduciary duty of
prudence under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") by failing to monitor or control recordkeeping fees paid
to the Plan's recordkeeper, T. Rowe Price RPS Inc.
Southeastern is a privately owned American less than truckload
trucking company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uxfWo8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SPRING FERTILITY: Intercepts Electronic Communications, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SPRING FERTILITY HOLDINGS, LLC, META PLATFORMS, INC.,
and LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-07374 (N.D.
Cal., October 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, and for invasion of privacy
under California's Constitution.
According to the complaint, Spring Fertility aided, employed,
agreed, and conspired with social media websites Facebook and
LinkedIn to intercept sensitive and confidential personal and
medical communications, including personally identifiable
information and protected health information, sent by patients
seeking to book services with Spring Fertility through its website.
By failing to receive the requisite consent, Spring Fertility
breached its duty of confidentiality and aided Facebook and
LinkedIn in unlawfully intercepting the Plaintiff's and Class
members' PII and PHI, says the suit.
Spring Fertility Holdings, LLC is a provider of fertility services
and treatments, with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.
Meta Platforms, Inc. is a social media company with its principal
place of business located in Menlo Park, California.
LinkedIn Corporation is a social media company with its principal
place of business located in Sunnyvale, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
Email: swestcot@bursor.com
SUPER MICRO: Covey Financial et al. Sue Over Securities Law Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
COVEY FINANCIAL INC., PEMBROKE CAPITAL LTD. CORP., and SOVEREL,
INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER, INC., CHARLES LIANG, and DAVID
WEIGAND, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-07274 (N.D. Cal., October 18,
2024) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased or acquired Super Micro securities,
including call options, as well as those that sold put options on
Super Micro stock, between February 2, 2021 and September 25, 2024
inclusive.
Throughout the said period, the Defendants made misrepresentations
that resulted in artificially inflated prices of Super Micro's
stocks. These misrepresentations include Super Micro's reported
revenue, earnings, gross margins, and other financial figures and
their compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
(ii) the effectiveness of the Super Micro's internal controls over
financial reporting; (iii) the drivers and sustainability of Super
Micro's gross margins; and (iv) the Super Micro's compliance with
trade control regulations restricting exports to Russia, says the
suit.
Super Micro is a San Jose, California-based manufacturer of server
and storage solutions which sells its hardware to technology
companies for use in servers supporting websites, data storage, and
artificial intelligence (AI) applications. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Adam C. McCall, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
amccall@bfalaw.com
- and -
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and-
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
75 Virginia Road
White Plains, NY 10603
Telephone: (914) 265-2991
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: Agrees to Settle $6-Mil. Canadian Class-Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
toronto.com reports that if you bought Canadian event tickets
through Ticketmaster during the first half of 2018, you may soon
find yourself with some credit for future ticket purchases through
the platform.
That's because the ticket retailer has agreed to a settlement of a
class-action lawsuit launched against it over how it displayed
ticket prices and fees.
The lawsuit was launched by Crystal Watch against Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc., Live Nation Worldwide Inc., Ticketmaster
Canada Holdings ULC, Ticketmaster Canada LP, Ticketmaster L.L.C.,
The V.I.P. Tour Company, Ticketsnow.com, Inc., and TNOW
Entertainment Group, Inc., collectively referred to as
Ticketmaster.
The class-action alleges Ticketmaster's previous marketing
practices with respect to price representations and non-optional
fee displays were contrary to the Consumer Protection and Business
Practices Act.
The defendants deny any wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement.
The settlement must still be approved in court.
What's in it for you?
The two parties agreed to a settlement amount of $6,027,000 which,
if approved by the court, would be subject to deductions for legal
and administrative costs.
All people residing in Canada, except for excluded persons, who
purchased one or more tickets through ticketmaster.ca or
Ticketmaster's mobile app for an event in Canada, except Quebec,
between Jan. 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 would be eligible for
compensation.
The compensation would be in the form of a credit voucher of up to
$45.
The voucher can be used to make a ticket purchase from Ticketmaster
in the form of a single, transferable, non-refundable and non-cash
convertible electronic gift card of up to $45, with the final value
to be determined in accordance with the settlement agreement, with
no expiry date, subject to certain terms and conditions.
Excluded persons are all the defendants, the past and present
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, senior
employees, legal representatives, heirs, predecessors, and the
successors and assigns of the defendants.
The settlement approval hearing is scheduled for Friday, Dec. 6 in
court in Regina, Sask.
More information on the settlement is available at
ticketfeesdisplaysettlement.ca. [GN]
TIKTOK INC: Seeks to Continue Reconsideration Hearing to Dec. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADINE GRIFFITH;
PATRICIA SHIH; PHILIP CANTORE; JACOB WATTERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TIKTOK INC., et al.,
Case No. 5:23-cv-00964-SB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order that the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the order denying motion for class
certification, or for leave to file a renewed motion for class
certification be continued to Nov. 1, 2024, and heard on the same
calendar as Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On Oct. 21, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiffs stated that, while
they are fine with the current schedule, they do not oppose
continuing this hearing to a later date, specifically to November
8.
The Plaintiffs filed the motion on Sept. 23, 2024, and noticed a
hearing date of Oct. 25, 2024. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, this date
created professional conflicts for the Defendants' two lead
counsel.
While Plaintiffs were unaware of these conflicts when setting this
hearing, Plaintiffs’ October 25 hearing date has the effect of
denying Defendants their choice of counsel on an important motion.
This is reason enough to continue the hearing. “Selecting a
lawyer in whom a litigant has confidence is an important client
prerogative.”
The Plaintiffs' November 8 proposal works for Defendants, though it
falls after the Court’s November 1 Non-Discovery Motion Hearing
Cutoff.
TikTok operates as a free service and social media application for
creating and sharing short mobile videos.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y7afoc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Victor Jih, Esq.
Kelly H. Yin, Esq.
Luis Li, Esq.
Sheryl S. Bassin, Esq.
Dylan G. Savage, Esq.
Thomas Wakefield, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &
ROSATI, P.C.
1900 Avenue of The Stars, 28th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 446-6900
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
E-mail: vjih@wsgr.com
kyin@wsgr.com
luis.li@wsgr.com
sbassin@wsgr.com
dsavage@wsgr.com
twakefield@wsgr.com
UNITED MORTGAGE: Seeks More Time File Class Cert Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, v. UNITED
MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-YY (D. Or.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting or an extension
of time until Nov. 1, 2024, to file its response to the Plaintiff
Erik Mattson's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations.
The Defendant's counsel has been tied up with several other
deadlines, is currently out of town at a business conference, and
needs
additional time to formulate and draft Defendant's response to
Plaintiff’s Objections. The additional time will also allow the
parties to have further settlement exploration discussions.
The undersigned has conferred with Plaintiff's counsel and the
latter does not object to the requested extension. This motion is
made in good faith and not for any improper purpose.
United Mortgage is mortgage lender.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=goBdi9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Robert E. Sabido, Esq.
SABIDO LAW, LLC
9385 SW Locust Street
Tigard, OR 97223
Telephone: (971) 302-6236
Facsimile: (503) 974-1673
E-mail: robert@sabidolawllc.com
VIRTUA HEALTH: Faces ERISA Class Suit Over Retirement Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLY GRINK and DIANE TRUMP, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. VIRTUA HEALTH, INC., BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF VIRTUA HEALTH, INC., FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE,
VIRTUA DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLANS RETIREMENT SUB-COMMITTEE, and
LINCOLN NATIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP, Case
No. 1:24-cv-09919 (D.N.J., Oct. 18, 2024) is an action brought by
current and former participants in an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act defined contribution retirement plan sponsored by
Virtua to recover losses due to mismanagement of Virtua's 401(k)
and 403(b) retirement plans, including the selection and retention
of imprudent investment options and engaging in prohibited
transactions with a party in interest.
The suit alleges that the Virtua Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty by allowing Lincoln -- a
party in interest -- to improperly benefit for its provision of
services to the Plan and Program by receiving unreasonable and
excessive compensation from managing the Stable Value Account.
Substantially similar investment products were available to the
Plans throughout the Class Period from other providers that would
have provided the Plans' participants with equivalent or higher
returns at a substantially lower cost and without improperly
benefiting a party in interest.
The Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of the Class
defined below consisting of the Plans' participants and
beneficiaries, bring this action on behalf of the Plans under 29
U.S.C. Sections 1132(a)(2) and (3) to enforce the Virtua
Defendants' liability under 29 U.S.C. Section 1109(a), to make good
to the Plans all losses resulting from their breaches of fiduciary
duties, and to restore to the Plans any lost profits.
Plaintiff Kelly Grink resides in Chesilhurst, New Jersey, and
during the Class Period was a participant in the Program under
Section 1002(7) because she and her beneficiaries were eligible to
receive benefits under the Program.
Virtua is a New Jersey non-profit corporation that operates a
network of hospitals, surgery centers, physician practices, and
fitness centers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
Shanon Carson, Esq.
Olivia Lanctot, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1001 G. Street, NW, Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9740
E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
olanctot@bm.net
- and -
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC: Faces Kermani Suit Over Free Shipping Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitri Kermani, individually and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., a California
corporation, Rejuvenation Inc., a subsidiary of Williams-Sonoma,
Inc., and DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-08994 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 18,
2024) contends that the Defendants engaged in false advertising by
promoting "Free Shipping Site-Wide" without disclosing relevant
exclusions that materially affected the terms of the promotion.
On Aug. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Rejuvenation website,
owned and operated by the Defendants, in search of a Steele-branded
laundry hamper. The Defendants prominently advertised "Free
Shipping Site-Wide" on their website, and Plaintiff, relying on
this representation, proceeded to select the product and size he
intended to purchase. At all stages of this process, the website
continued to display the "Free Shipping Site-Wide" promotion with
no visible or readily accessible exclusions.
The Plaintiff added the selected item to his shopping cart and
applied the promo code "freeship" as instructed. Despite
Defendants' express representation of free shipping, a shipping fee
of $159 was still being charged in the shopping cart.
The Plaintiff then reviewed Defendants' "Exclusions" page as
directed by the representative. This page contained no mention of
any exclusions for heavy items, and in fact, the exclusions were
limited to items ending in "$.97" or "$.99" as being
non-returnable. There was no mention of weight restrictions or
shipping limitations for the Steele-branded laundry hampers or any
similar products.
As a direct result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff and
other consumers have suffered economic damages and emotional
distress, as they were induced to make purchases under false
pretenses and had their complaints and requests for rectification
disregarded, the suit avers.
Williams-Sonoma owns and operates several retail brands, including
Rejuvenation, which engages in substantial business throughout the
United States, including within the Central District of
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason M. Ingber Esq.
INGBER LAW GROUP
3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (310) 270-0089
E-mail: ji@jasoningber.com
WPROMOTE LLC: Garcia Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SILVIA GARCIA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WPROMOTE, LLC, a
California entity d/b/a WPROMOTE.COM, Case No. 24STCV19883 (Filed
Aug. 6, 2024), was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on Sept. 11, 2024.
The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-07780-AB-MAA to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The class includes:
"All persons within the United States who during the statute of
limitations period: (1) visited Defendant's website and/or
entered any terms using the search feature on Defendant's
Website; and (2) whose privacy was violated . . . ."
Wpromote is a digital marketing agency.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Chris Ott, Esq.
LOEB & LOEB LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-2000
Facsimile: (310) 282-2200
E-mail: cott@loeb.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 ***