/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241107.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 224
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Lane Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Toll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Santizo OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Sayers OK'd
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Truseell OK'd
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Daniels Balks at Oil Additive in Soda Products
ALTITUDE CLUB: Turner Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must Submit Memorandum of Law by Nov. 12
ARAMARA BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
CHOICE HOTELS: De La Pena Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
COMPASS MINERALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Kansas
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: As Bid to Replace Diabat as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
DOXIM INC: Court Consolidates Three Class Actions
ECMD INC: Madison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
FAVORITE WORLD: Parties Can File Confidential Exhibits Under Seal
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Lowery Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
FINDALY AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Stay Discovery Partly Granted in Smith
FLO HEALTH: Frasco Seeks to File Materials Under Seal
FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 12, 2025
GONNELLA FROZEN: Mbaye Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
INFINITE HOMES: Amaya Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Mouthwash
KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Barbosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KENNY AMURO: IPCL Seeks to Vacate Arbitrator's Class Cert Orders
KING'S COLLEGE: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due May 16, 2025
LEAF JOINT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Says
LORAIN COUNTY, OH: Violates Fifth Amendment, Nieves Alleges
NEW START CAPITAL: Lambert Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Stay Discovery in Elisa Tossed
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Class Settlement in Rzepkoski Gets Initial Nod
PALM BEACH TAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit
PHUNG ENTERPRISES: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
PINNACLE TOO: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Dec. 9
POLYGLASS USA: Mediation in Castro Reset to Dec. 17
RAY JONES: Back Wins Class Certification Bid
RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Gregor Class Cert Bid by Jan. 10, 2025
S.USA LIFE: Anderson Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
SMTC MANUFACTURING: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Must File Amended Pleadings Under Seal
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Must File Amended Pleadings Under Seal
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TRIPLE LEAF: Smith Suit Alleges Mislabeled Herbal Teas
VICTORS SUSHI: Parties Must File Class Status Report by Nov. 29
VISA INC: Faces Multiple Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
WELLFLEET GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Moraes Says
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Smith Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
*********
3M COMPANY: Lane Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Preston Lincoln Lane, Sr., and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co..; AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC. individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina
S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Angus Fire Armour
Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-06202-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a civilian fire system inspector and maintenance operator for
the Norfolk Naval Air Station and was diagnosed with kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing
PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Toll Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary James Toll, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co..; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.
individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina S.A.; BASF
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Ciba,
Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as successor-in-interest
to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT
CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest to Sandoz
Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA, INC., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC, f/k/a Dowdupont
Inc., individually and as successor- in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY, individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to
Angus Fire Armour Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-06198-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is
brought for damages for personal injury and wrongful death
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a civilian firefighter at multiple sites located throughout
Washington state and was diagnosed with and died from kidney cancer
as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing
PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
wwright@shipmanlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Wilkerson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Desean Wilkerson, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co..; AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC. individually and as successor-in-interest to Atofina
S.A.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor-in-interest
to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as
successor-in-interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; CORTEVA,
INC., individually and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS
INC, f/k/a Dowdupont Inc., individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually
and as successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions
Enterprise; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Angus Fire Armour
Corporation; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, individually and as
successor-in-interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-06199-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury and wrongful death resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS bind to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a civilian firefighter for Station No. 23 for the City of
Memphis, Tennessee Division of Fire at multiple sites located
throughout Memphis and was diagnosed with liver cancer as a result
of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary K. Shipman, Esq.
William G. Wright, Esq.
SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, LLP
575 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 106
Wilmington, NC 28405
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
Email: gshipman@shipmanlaw.com
wwright@shipmanlaw.com
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Santizo OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Santizo v. A&A Services,
LLC the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Coordinated Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim
class counsel is granted to the extent it requests
appointment
of interim co-lead class counsel.
2. Courtney E. Maccarone of Levy & Korsinsky, LLP; Terence R.
Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; Jean S. Martin of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; James S. Pizzirusso
of
Hausfeld LLP; Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP; and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP
are
appointed as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
3. The amended application of Brian Paul Thompson of Chicago
Consumer Law Center for appointment to Plaintiffs' Executive
or
Steering Committee or Other Position is denied without
prejudice.
Although Mr. Thompson is also qualified counsel with experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserted in these cases, as outlined above, the Court finds
that counsel have not established that a Leadership / Steering
Committee should be created at this juncture.
Mr. Thompson's motion and brief demonstrate he is qualified to be
appointed to any such leadership structure, but also does not
explain why a larger leadership structure is necessary to begin
with.
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application, without
prejudice.
In sum, the Court finds that appointment of Coordinated Plaintiff's
Counsel as interim co-lead class counsel at this juncture is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
However, the Court will not create a Leadership Committee without a
further showing of necessity, information outlining each member's
roles and duties within the committee, and any other information
justifying its establishment.
A&A Home offers a range of renovation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9sge1j at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Sayers OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sayers v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00228 (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Coordinated Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim
class counsel is granted to the extent it requests
appointment
of interim co-lead class counsel.
2. Courtney E. Maccarone of Levy & Korsinsky, LLP; Terence R.
Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; Jean S. Martin of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; James S. Pizzirusso
of
Hausfeld LLP; Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP; and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP
are
appointed as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
3. The amended application of Brian Paul Thompson of Chicago
Consumer Law Center for appointment to Plaintiffs' Executive
or
Steering Committee or Other Position is denied without
prejudice.
Although Mr. Thompson is also qualified counsel with experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserted in these cases, as outlined above, the Court finds
that counsel have not established that a Leadership / Steering
Committee should be created at this juncture.
Mr. Thompson's motion and brief demonstrate he is qualified to be
appointed to any such leadership structure, but also does not
explain why a larger leadership structure is necessary to begin
with.
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application, without
prejudice.
In sum, the Court finds that appointment of Coordinated Plaintiff's
Counsel as interim co-lead class counsel at this juncture is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
However, the Court will not create a Leadership Committee without a
further showing of necessity, information outlining each member's
roles and duties within the committee, and any other information
justifying its establishment.
A&A Home offers a range of renovation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O6cQYe at no extra
charge.[CC]
A&A SERVICES: Appointment of Interim Class Counsel in Truseell OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Truseell v. A&A Services,
LLC (Re: SAV-RX Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-CV-00229 (D.
Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order that:
1. The Coordinated Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim
class counsel is granted to the extent it requests
appointment
of interim co-lead class counsel.
2. Courtney E. Maccarone of Levy & Korsinsky, LLP; Terence R.
Coates of Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; Jean S. Martin of
Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; James S. Pizzirusso
of
Hausfeld LLP; Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP; and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP
are
appointed as interim co-lead class counsel pursuant to
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(3).
3. The amended application of Brian Paul Thompson of Chicago
Consumer Law Center for appointment to Plaintiffs' Executive
or
Steering Committee or Other Position is denied without
prejudice.
Although Mr. Thompson is also qualified counsel with experience in
handling class actions, other complex litigation, and the types of
claims asserted in these cases, as outlined above, the Court finds
that counsel have not established that a Leadership / Steering
Committee should be created at this juncture.
Mr. Thompson's motion and brief demonstrate he is qualified to be
appointed to any such leadership structure, but also does not
explain why a larger leadership structure is necessary to begin
with.
Accordingly, the Court will deny his application, without
prejudice.
In sum, the Court finds that appointment of Coordinated Plaintiff's
Counsel as interim co-lead class counsel at this juncture is
appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).
However, the Court will not create a Leadership Committee without a
further showing of necessity, information outlining each member's
roles and duties within the committee, and any other information
justifying its establishment.
A&A Home offers a range of renovation services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=X7dDFK at no extra
charge.[CC]
AHOLD DELHAIZE: Daniels Balks at Oil Additive in Soda Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHAVONNE DANIELS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA, INC. and FOOD
LION, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00876 (M.D.N.C., October
22, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and
all others similarly situated who purchased Food Lion brand Omazing
Orange Soda which was unfit for its intended use because it
contains Brominated Vegetable Oil.
The Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendants' orange
flavored soda product containing BVO. The Plaintiff has been caused
to purchase a defective product that is worthless, or worth less
than the price paid. Due to the negative health effects associated
with prolonged consumption of BVO containing products, the
Plaintiff must undergo periodic medical testing to detect and
protect themselves from future injury or illness, says the suit.
The Plaintiff further brings this suit to recover the economic
costs of the extra medical evaluations that she expects to incur as
a result of the exposure to BVO. This action seeks refunds of the
amount Plaintiff and other members of the Classes paid, medical
monitoring costs, and other damages as pled herein.
Ahold Delhaize USA, Inc. is a supermarket operator in the United
States under the retail banners Stop & Shop, Giant Food,
Giant/Martin's, Food Lion, and Hannaford.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tiffany N. Lawson, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
E-mail: tiffany.lawson@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
ALTITUDE CLUB: Turner Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALTITUDE CLUB NYC CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08020 (S.D.N.Y., October 22, 2024) is a civil action
against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate the Defendant's website, www.altitudeclubnyc.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when
attempting to access Defendant's website on October 14, 2024 from
his home in White Plains, New York in an effort to search for and
purchase Defendant's products and services, including their premium
hybrid flower, "Ring Pop Runtz" with the following explanation of
this product, "Ring Pop Runtz is a hybrid weed strain made from a
genetic cross between Ring Pop and Runtz." Despite the website's
apparent thoroughness and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered
significant accessibility barriers that prevented him from fully
utilizing its services, when he attempted to access the site by
himself to discover crucial information regarding the presence of
any contraindications therein, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Altitude Club NYC Corp. is a New York corporation that owns and
maintains a physical dispensary and the associated website.[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
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must Submit Memorandum of Law by Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Won v. Amazon.com, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-02867 (E.D.N.Y., Filed May 20, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an order that:
-- The parties' joint motion to seal provides no legal argument as
to
the basis for sealing the bundled motion to certify class.
-- The parties are directed to submit a memorandum of law and
accompanying affidavits, if necessary, by Nov. 12, 2024.
-- The submission should establish a legal basis for sealing the
Motion to Certify Class under the factors outlined in Lugosch
v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga , 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) and its
progeny.
-- Simply citing to the existence of a Protective Order does not
satisfy the requirements of Lugosch .
Amazon.com., doing business as Amazon is an American multinational
technology company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, and
online advertising.[CC]
ARAMARA BEAUTY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARAMARA BEAUTY LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08046 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2024) is a civil
rights action against the Defendant for its 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 in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
October 2, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Glow Recipe Skincare
from Defendant and to view the information on the website,
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. He was unable to locate
pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken
links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on
Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visuallyimpaired consumers.
Aramara Beauty LLC operates the website that provides personal care
goods.[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
CHOICE HOTELS: De La Pena Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
FARIDES DE LA PENA, FRANCIA DE LA PENA, LUIS MIGUEL JUANMAYOR
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. CHOICE HOTELS INTERNATIONAL, INC.(DBA MAINSTAY SUITES MT. LAUREL
- PHILADELPHIA), Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09981-RMB-AMD
(D.N.J., October 22, 2024) is an action brought by the Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves as well as other employees similarly
situated, against Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law,
arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment
policies, patterns and/or practices.
The complaint seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees. It
alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective employees to work
more than 40 hours per week without providing them with any
additional compensation.
Plaintiffs Farides De La Pena and Francia De La Pena were employed
by the Defendant as housekeepers from January 20, 2024 until
September 17, 2024 and from November 4, 2023 until June 10, 2024,
respectively.
Plaintiff Juanmayor worked for the Defendant as a janitor from
approximately April 8, 2024 until September 17, 2024.
Choice Hotels International, Inc. is an American multinational
hospitality company based in North Bethesda, Maryland.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
COMPASS MINERALS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Compass Minerals International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024,
that the Company continues to defend itself from putative class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas.
On April 24, 2024, the Company, two of its former officers and two
current officers were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, alleging that the Company and such officers
made misleading statements damaging shareholders relating to the
Company's fire retardant business.
The Company intends to vigorously defend these allegations.
At this time, the Company is unable to assess with any certainty
what, if any, damages could be awarded in this matter.
Compass produces salt, plant nutrients and magnesium chloride for
distribution primarily in North America.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY: Faces Another Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Review reports that on October 7, Eileen Chang '21, as well
as a Boston University student, filed a class action antitrust case
against the College Board, along with 40 top tier universities for
price fixing. They claim that in 2006 the College Board and many of
its university members decided to consider the assets of
non-custodial parents (NCP) when measuring the financial need of
applicants whose parents are separated.
As a result, the plaintiffs claim that their financial aid packages
were artificially reduced compared with what they would have
received if their non-custodial parent's ability to pay was
ignored.
Background
The goal of most colleges is to distribute available financial aid
funds in a fair manner. The simplest approach is used by many
public colleges nationwide and the four statutory colleges at
Cornell. They take the annual appropriation from the
taxpayer-supported SUNY budget and use it to lower the in-state
tuition for every New York resident student.
However, most colleges try to distribute available financial aid
based upon need, where need is based on parents' ability to
contribute. At the other end of the spectrum are Albert Einstein
Medical School, Cooper Union, and the University of Austin, who do
not collect any tuition from their students.
The federal government sponsors the FAFSA as a system to collect
data and measure financial need. The College Board sponsors a
competing system called the "College Scholarship Service Profile."
Cornell and other top private colleges use the CSS Profile, while
many public colleges use the FAFSA.
In 2006, a debate raged within the financial aid community as to
whether to require non-custodial parents to submit their tax
returns and other data for consideration under the CSS Profile.
Although each university makes its own decision on how to handle
NCP data, the College Board leadership encouraged its members to
use the CSS Profile calculation. In contrast, FAFSA does not
require non-custodial parents to provide data.
The complaint alleges, "[t]he ten universities in the Top 50
private universities that do not require NCP financial data are
Gonzaga University, Loyola Marymount University, Pepperdine
University, Princeton University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute,
Santa Clara University, Vanderbilt University, and Yeshiva
University."
The Lawsuit
Although two college students from divorced families are the
plaintiffs, the lawsuit is engineered by Steve W. Berman, who is a
named partner in the Hagens Berman firm. That firm's website lists
approximately 200 class action lawsuits handled by the firm. Hagens
Berman was one of two firms that recently settled with the NCAA
over its rules preventing payment to student athletes.
The suit was filed in the federal District Court in Chicago. It
requests a jury trial and certification of the class. The two
plaintiffs are suing to represent the rights of a large group of
students and alumni, estimated to be at least 20,000, who applied
for financial aid with non-custodial parent's data from the 40
named colleges.
Because the suit is filed using Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act, if the plaintiffs win, they will get three times the damages
that they prove at trial. Since the Sherman Act is a federal law,
the plaintiffs get to file in federal court and to use the federal
rules governing class-action lawsuits.
The lawsuit seeks to hold the College Board and the 40 colleges to
"joint and several liability." This means that if all but one party
settles or is not liable, but just one defendant is held liable by
the jury, that one party will have to pay the total amount due.
This puts a heavy burden on the defendants to settle.
The plaintiffs argue that because of the conspiracy, applicants
with NCPs got a smaller financial aid package than they would have
if the NCP data were ignored. The complaint notes, "the average net
price for the forty Defendant universities is approximately $6,200
more than for the ten non-NCP schools in the top 50 private
universities." However, the defendants will argue that the
college-wide differences in "net price" can be caused by factors
other than including NCP assets. Indeed, if the financial aid
budget for each college is fixed, the average cost of attending
would not change as financial aid dollars shift between students
with NCP to students from non-divorced families.
At trial, the Plaintiffs will have to hire economists as expert
witnesses to show the impact of the alleged conspiracy on the
availability and size of financial aid awards.
Expected Outcomes
As a first step, the Defendants will move to dismiss the lawsuit,
and the Plaintiffs may have to amend their complaint to beef up
details about the conspiracy.
If the Plaintiffs survive the motion to dismiss and gain
certification of the class, they will try to pressure the
Defendants to settle. Cornell is a defendant in a separate
antitrust class action lawsuit that secured $284 million in
settlements. Of that, the law firms got $98 million. Cornell and
six other colleges continue to fight that case.
Because of public outrage over the size of that settlement, the
colleges may be less willing to settle or less generous in the
settlement terms of this case.
Meanwhile, Cornell will retain a first-rate law firm to defend its
interests in this case, with those legal expenses either raising
tuition or reducing funds available for financial aid for current
or future students.
Antitrust cases like this involve years of discovery and reviewing
documents.
The pending litigation has made Cornell's financial aid staff less
willing to speak to the press or to shared governance groups. This
lawsuit could be pending for another four years, casting a
long-term cloud over public debate of Cornell's financial aid
policies.
Although the College Board has not announced any plans to
discontinue its CSS Profile, greater care will be expected when the
College Board or its financial aid committees gather.
As word spreads of the $284 million successful settlement in the
other antitrust case, more class action lawsuits can be expected
over every facet of calculating financial aid. If this continues,
Cornell may decide to outsource financial aid decisions to a
company with a good AI model to insulate itself from such
liability. [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: As Bid to Replace Diabat as Lead Plaintiff Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ali Diabat, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE
GROUP AG, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05874-CM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge McMahon entered an order denying motion to substitute Mehmet
Resit As for Diabat as lead plaintiff.
The case was originally brought by a purported class of investors
alleging that Credit Suisse and its affiliates committed securities
fraud in the lead up to the Bank's March 2023 collapse.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vJM9u5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOXIM INC: Court Consolidates Three Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN MCKINLEY,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, v.
DOXIM, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-11550-TGB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge Terrence Berg entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate cases and appoint interim co-counsel.
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a), the Court consolidates
-- McKinley v. Doxim, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-11550 (filed
June
13, 2024);
-- Narolis v. Doxim, Inc., No. 2:24-cv-11587 (filed June 18,
2024); and
-- McNichols v. Doxim, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-11599 (filed
June
19, 2024), under the new title "In re Doxim, Inc. Data
Security Incident Litigation" (each a "Related Action" and
together the "Consolidated Action").
2. No further filings shall be made in Narolis v. Doxim, Inc.,
Case
No. 2:24-cv-11587 or McNichols v. Doxim, Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-
11599, which shall both be administratively closed.
All pleadings therein maintain their legal relevance until
the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint. The Consolidated
Complaint
shall be filed within the next 45 days, as further set forth
below.
3. All papers previously filed and served to date in the Related
Actions are deemed part of the record in the Consolidated
Action.
Doxim is a developer of customer communications management
software.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EGVxlc at no extra
charge.[CC]
ECMD INC: Madison Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
BRANDON MADISON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECMD, INC., a North Carolina Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2024CUOE026931, was removed from the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on September 12,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-07887-SVW-MAA to
the proceeding.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges Defendants' unlawful labor
practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the Unfair
Competition Law.
ECMD, Inc. manufactures and distributes millwork and building
products.[BN]
Defendant ECMD, Inc. is represented by:
Dessi N. Day, Esq.
PIERSON FERDINAND, LLP
12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (629) 278-4515
FAVORITE WORLD: Parties Can File Confidential Exhibits Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDA MINOR and ASHA
AYANNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
FAVORITE WORLD, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04425-JFW-AJR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting joint
application to file under seal confidential exhibits to the
Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification:
Page Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class
Certification
2 Portions of line 15-16
5 Line 7 and portions of lines 6 and 8
6 Line 2 and 10 and portions of lines 1. 3 and 11
7 Lines 19-21 amd portions of lines 18 and 22
8 Portion of line 4
10 Portions of lines 17, 18, 21 and 23
Declaration of Lorisa Ancheta ISO Defendant's Opposition to Motion
for
Class Certification
1:12-15 Portion of Paragraph 4
Declaration of Juan Pablo Silvera ISO Defendant's Opposition to
Motion for Class Certification
1:14-20 Paragraph 4
1:21 Portion of Paragraph 5
1:23-25 Paragraph 6
Declaration of Massimiliano Tirocchi ISO Defendant’s Opposition
to Motion for Class Certification
1:14 Portion of Paragraph 2
1:22-2:1 Portion of Paragraph 4
2:14 Portion of Paragraph 8
Favorite World is in the lingerie and corsets (underwear)
business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HoBy6u at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Lowery Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
RATIEK LOWERY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS a/k/a FIDELITY
MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH (FMR), Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12669 (D.
Mass., October 21, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard representative Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information stored within
Defendant's information network.
With this action, representative Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant
responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause
representative Plaintiff and, at least, thousands of other
similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable
cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on between August
17, 2024 and August 19, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated
Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed
highly sensitive PII that was being kept unprotected.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant disregarded the rights of
representative Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take and
implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that
representative Plaintiff s safeguarded and failing to take
available steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of data.
Plaintiff Lowery is a former banking customer of the Defendant.
Fidelity Investments is an American multinational financial
services corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (213) 474-3800
Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
E-mail: daniel@slfla.com
FINDALY AUTOMOTIVE: Bid to Stay Discovery Partly Granted in Smith
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KARENS SMITH, PHOLISITH
BOUPHAPRASEUTH, RYAN FARRELL, SUSAN STEVENS, and JAY SAX,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v.
FINDALY AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.),
the Hon. Judge Elayna Youchah entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's motion to stay discovery:
The court further entered an ordered that:
-- Discovery is opened for a period of 90 days during which time
the
parties may propound written discovery pertaining only to
Plaintiffs' individual claims.
-- No class related discovery may be sought during the Individual
Discovery Period.
-- Individual discovery may include interrogatories, document
requests, and requests for admissions.
-- No depositions are to be taken during the Individual Discovery
Period.
-- The propounded interrogatories pertaining to individual claims
will not prevent additional class-related interrogatories
under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if this case proceeds as
a
class following a decision on the Motion to Dismiss.
Findlay sells a variety of new and used cars.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n9xoOk at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLO HEALTH: Frasco Seeks to File Materials Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FLO
HEALTH, INC., META PLATFORMS, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, and FLURRY, INC.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider
whether another Party's material should be filed under seal with
respect to Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs are filing this Administrative Motion because these
documents, contain material that the Defendants or non-parties have
designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –ATTORNEYS EYES
ONLY pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order in this case.
Thus, the Plaintiffs file this administrative motion to facilitate
the filing of the Declaration of Diana J. Zinser in Support of
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class Certification.
The Plaintiffs currently take no position on the propriety of
sealing these documents, or redacting Plaintiffs' reply in support
of class certification. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Reply, along with
the exhibits to the Zinser Decl., have been provisionally filed
under seal.
Material Full or Partial Designating
Sealing Party
Exhibit 132 to the Declaration Full Flo Health,
Inc.
of Diana J. Zinser (FLO-00000289)
Exhibit 133 to the Declaration Full Flo Health,
Inc.
of Diana J. Zinser (FLO-00000361)
Exhibit 134 to the Declaration Full Flo Health,
Inc.
of Diana J. Zinser (FLO-00094734)
Exhibit 135 to the Declaration Full Flo Health,
Inc.
of Diana J. Zinser (FLO-00070873)
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Full Defendant
Class Certification
The Parties will file a Joint stipulation and proposed order
modifying sealing procedures related to the Plaintiffs' reply.
However, pending review and approval by the Court, Plaintiffs file
the present motion in accordance with Civil L.R. 7-11 and 79-5(f)
and the Court’s standing order.
Flo is a maker of the Flo Period & Ovulation Tracker mobile app.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B2Qbhy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN
CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-3835
Telephone: (805) 543-0990
Facsimile: (805) 543-0980
E-mail: wagstaffe@ammcglaw.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
- and -
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Kent Morgan Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
1632 Homestead Trail
Long Lake, MN 55356
Telephone: (612) 940-4452
E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com
- and -
William Darryl Harris, II, Esq.
HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC
3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246
Columbus, OH 43221
Telephone: (614) 504-3350
Facsimile: (614) 340-1940
E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com
FORD MOTOR: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 12, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES DOLAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. FORD MOTOR
COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00512-REP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge
Robert Payne entered an order granting the consent motion and
amending the Scheduling Order as follows:
Event Current Revised
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' service of expert Oct. 18, 2024 Dec. 10,
2024
disclosures and opening expert
reports
Ford's service of its expert Nov. 15, 2024 Jan. 10,
2025
disclosures and opening
expert reports
Service of rebuttal expert Dec. 12, 2024 Feb. 12,
2025
disclosures and rebuttal
expert reports
Parties to file Rule 702 Jan. 16, 2025 March 14,
2025
motions
Parties to file Rule 702 Feb. 6, 2025 April 4,
2025
oppositions
Parties to file Rule 702 Feb. 20, 2025 April
21,2025
replies
Plaintiffs class certification March 13, 2025 May 12,2025
Ford's opposition to April 3, 2025 June 2, 2025
Plaintiffs class certification
motion
Class certification hearing May 12,2025 July 8,2025
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uniHPu at no extra
charge.[CC]
GONNELLA FROZEN: Mbaye Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BEDIAKO MBAYE and BERNARDO SOTO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GONNELLA FROZEN PRODUCTS LLC, and
GONNELLA BAKING CO., Case No. 3:24-cv-01844-KM (M.D. Pa., Oct. 25,
2024) challenges policies and practices of Gonnella that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The action seeks to recover unpaid wages resulting from the
Defendants' failure to compensate employees for all hours worked,
including time spent donning and doffing required clothing and
protective equipment, handwashing, and related walking and waiting
time, before clocking in at the beginning of the shift, after
clocking out at the end of the shift, and during unpaid meal
breaks.
The Plaintiffs were employees of the Gonella.
Gonnella produces bakery products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
E-mail: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
INFINITE HOMES: Amaya Bid for Attys' Fees Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALFREDO AMAYA, et
al., v. INFINITE HOMES GROUP 646/500 LLC, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00031-SAG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge J. Mark Coulson grants
in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees
and costs.
The Court has reviewed the invoices and finds the service fees to
be a reasonable expense: it is clear from the volume of invoices
and multitude of addresses listed therein that service was quite
complicated.
However, the Court will deduct the fees for serving the two
defaulting defendants, who are not party to the settlement
agreement.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $1,502.50 in
costs.
The Plaintiffs brought claims against sixteen Defendants, alleging
violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("MWPCL"), the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act
("MWFA"), and Maryland common law.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8J3bGv
at no extra charge.[CC]
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Larkin Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Response
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARKIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
v. Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Re: DA VINCI SURGICAL ROBOT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 3:21-cv-03825-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Hospital
Plaintiffs ask the Court granting administrative motion for leave
to file response to the Defendant Intuitive's objection to certain
class certification reply evidence.
Intuitive is an American biotechnology company that develops,
manufactures, and markets robotic products designed to improve
clinical outcomes of patients through minimally invasive surgery.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iRiR66 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel Maida, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite
3200 San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
E-mail: smaida@hausfeld.com
- and -
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: jcorrigan@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
11780 U.S. Highway One, Suite N500
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33408
Telephone: (561) 515-2604
Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Mouthwash
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges the makers of Listerine Cool Mint
Antiseptic mouthwash have failed to warn consumers that regular use
of the product as intended can spark the production of certain
bacteria known to cause severe infections and closely linked to
various types of cancer.
The 35-page Listerine lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Consumer,
Inc. and Kenvue Inc. states that although the ubiquitous mouthwash
is touted as able to "kill 99% of germs that cause bad breath,
plaque & gingivitis," among other claims, regular, intended use of
the product can result in the proliferation of bacteria including,
but not limited to, Streptococcus anginosus and Fusobacterium
nucleatum. These and other bacteria are known to cause "severe
invasive infections" and have been "closely associated" with oral
cancer, head and neck cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer,
breast cancer and others, the complaint states.
Though Kenvue specifically instructs consumers to use Listerine
twice per day for 30 seconds, and warns that the product should not
be swallowed or used by children under 12, the company has not
disclosed, on product labels or elsewhere, that the mouthwash can
increase the risk of dangerous cancers, the suit emphasizes.
According to the complaint, consumers "lost the entire benefit of
their bargain" when they bought Listerine mouthwash that posed a
serious, undisclosed health risk. The case says the Listerine Cool
Mint mouthwash at issue is "in no way safe for humans" and
"entirely worthless."
"Unfortunately for consumers, Defendants' advertising and marketing
campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because nowhere on the
Product's packaging or labeling do Defendants disclose that the
Product leads to the proliferation of cancer-causing bacteria," the
case charges.
Instead of warning consumers of the possible health risks of using
Listerine, the defendants' labeling "suggests the opposite," the
case contends. Per the suit, the warnings against swallowing and
usage by children lead reasonable consumers to believe that the
product is safe to use daily as directed.
However, a recent study found that Listerine, after three months of
normal use, "greatly affected the microbiome composition, with
Streptococcus anginosus and Fusobacterium nucleatum found to be
"significantly more abundant" after that time period than at
patients' measured baseline, the lawsuit states.
"Fusobacterium nucleatum is a bacteria that is closely associated
with oral cancer, head & neck cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic
cancer, esophageal cancer, and breast cancer. Studies have been
conducted that closely link this particular bacteria with
colorectal cancers, but also link oral concentration of this
bacteria with prediction of colon cancer prognosis. Additionally,
these bacteria have been shown to survive longer than other
bacteria under acidic conditions, like those found in the gut,
which suggests that they may travel from the mouth to the gut
through the digestive tract."
Streptococcus anginosus has been tied to gastrointestinal cancer
and, more rarely, colorectal cancer, the suit adds.
Per the class action suit, the general consensus in published
scientific literature is that the oral and gastrointestinal
microbiomes play a major part in an array of cancers that are
"established, promoted, and protected by imbalances of bacteria."
The case claims the defendants have intentionally concealed from
the public the dangers of using Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic
mouthwash. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act,
Listerine is a misbranded and/or adulterated drug that "does not
meet the general requirements for nonprescription drugs to be
marketed without an approved [FDA] application."
The Listerine class action lawsuit looks to cover all consumers in
the United States who bought Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic
mouthwash for personal or household use within the applicable
statute of limitations period.
How do I join the Listerine lawsuit?
When a class action lawsuit is initially filed, there's usually
nothing you need to do to join or sign up for the case. It's
typically in the event of a class action settlement that the people
covered by a lawsuit, called class members, need to act. This
usually involves filling out and filing a class action settlement
claim form online or by mail. [GN]
KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Barbosa Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
WALDISA DE ALVARENGA BARBOSA, HELIO COSTA, GILMARA DE SOUZA COSTA,
MARIA APARECEDIA COSTA BARBOSA, CONSOLACAO DE SOUSA, ADRIANA GOMES
DA SILVA REIS, DELVANIA GONCALVES, AND GENILDA RODRIGUES CLEMENTE,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-05633 (E.D. Pa., October 23, 2024) is a collective and
class action against the Defendant to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid
overtime wages due under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.
The complaint alleges that KBS knowingly failed to pay overtime
premium compensation, time-and-a-half overtime compensation, owed
to the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, as required by both federal and
state law.
The Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, worked for KBS as
janitorial service workers at warehouse facilities located in New
Jersey, and throughout the U.S.
Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC is a privately-owned facility
services provider, servicing more than 100,000 locations in all 50
states.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Larry Bendesky, Esq.
Adam J. Pantano, Esq.
Scott Fellmeth, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BENDESKY
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 575-3986
KENNY AMURO: IPCL Seeks to Vacate Arbitrator's Class Cert Orders
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISLAND PALM COMMUNITIES
LLC; and HICKAM COMMUNITIES LLC, v. KENNY AMURO and JOSHUA
BRANTLEY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00458-HG-RT (D. Haw.), the Petitioners
ask the Court granting motion to vacate Arbitrator's class
certification orders or, in the alternative, to compel individual
arbitration; memorandum in support of motion; declaration of
Matthew C. Shannon; Exhibits A-H.
A copy of the Petitioners' motion dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJJUyA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bruce D. Voss, Esq.
Matthew C. Shannon, Esq.
Jai W. Keep-Barnes, Esq.
LUNG ROSE VOSS & WAGNILD
Topa Financial Center
700 Bishop Street, Suite 900
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 523-9000
Facsimile: (808) 533-4184
E-mail: bvoss@legalhawaii.com
mshannon@legalhawaii.com
. jkeep-barnes@legalhawaii.com
KING'S COLLEGE: Filing of Class Certification Bids Due May 16, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL DANTONE, obo
himself & all other similarly situated, v. KING'S COLLEGE, Case No.
3:23-cv-01365-JKM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Julia Munley entered a
case management order as follows:
Amended Pleadings: Dec. 1, 2024
Discovery Due: Apr. 25, 2025
Plaintiff Expert Reports: Apr. 25, 2025
Defendant Expert Reports: May 30, 2025
Joinder of Parties: Dec. 1, 2024
Dispositive motions due: May 16, 2025
Class Certification Motions: May 16, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QeU9q8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Colella, Esq.
Lucia Romani, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER-PITTS
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Bellwoar, Esq.
Renee Smith, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS- PH/LA
LEAF JOINT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE LEAF JOINT LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07993 (S.D.N.Y., October 21, 2024) is a civil action
against Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain,
and operate the Defendant's website, www.theleafjoint.net, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when
attempting to access Defendant's website around October 14, 2024,
from his home in White Plains, New York in an effort to search for
and purchase Defendant's products and services, including their
premium edible product labeled as "2:1 THC:CBG Tropical
Nano-Infused Gummies [10 pcs]." Despite the website's apparent
thoroughness and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered
significant accessibility barriers that prevented him from fully
utilizing its services, when he attempted to access the site by
himself to discover crucial information regarding the presence of
any contraindications therein, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so
that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
The Leaf Joint LLC operates the website that serves as a cannabis
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
LORAIN COUNTY, OH: Violates Fifth Amendment, Nieves Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inez Nieves and Betsy Ramos, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Lorain County, an Ohio political subdivision
unit of government; and Craig Snodgrass, in his official capacity
as Lorain County Auditor, Case No. 1:24-cv-01861 (N.D. Ohio, Oct.
25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the government from
taking private property without paying just compensation to the
property’s owner.
For over a decade, Lorain County has violated this prohibition, the
lawsuit says. The violation proceeds as follows. First, people or
businesses fall behind on paying their property taxes -- often,
only a few thousand dollars in back taxes. The County then takes
the land via a tax deed and transfers the property to its county
land bank. The land bank then sells the property to a private
buyer. The prior owners lose their entire interest in the property,
such that a few thousand dollars in taxes results in the forfeiture
of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in land value, says the
suit.
That surplus value -- the difference between the taxes owed and the
sale value of the property -- is never returned to the former
owner, the Plaintiffs contend.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Benjamin M. Flowers, Esq.
Joseph P. Ashbrook, Esq.
ASHBROOK BYRNE KRESGE LLC
PO Box 8248
Cincinnati, OH 45249
Telephone: (513) 201-5775
Facsimile: (513) 216-9882
E-mail: bflowers@ashbrookbk.com
jpashbrook@ashbrookbk.com
- and -
Daniel R. Suhr, Esq.
HUGHES & SUHR LLC
747 N. LaSalle St., Suite 210
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (414) 588-1658
E-mail: dsuhr@equitylawsuit.com
- and -
Christopher E. Mills, Esq.
SPERO LAW LLC
557 East Bay St. No. 22251
Charleston, SC 29413
Telephone: 843-606-0640
E-mail: cmills@spero.law
NEW START CAPITAL: Lambert Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALANA LAMBERT, KIMARAH LeROUGE, and ERICA WILTZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW
START CAPITAL LLC F/K/A TITAN CONSULTING GROUP LLC; ROBERT RUSSINI,
an individual; DANI ADELSTEIN, an individual; and PHIL STEIN, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08055 (S.D.N.Y., October
23, 2024) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated for Defendants' systemic and continuous
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law,
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York State City Rights Law.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to furnish employees with a written
statement at the time of hiring, breach of contract, and unlawful
misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Plaintiff Lambert additionally brings claims on an individual
basis, for inter alia: Defendants' continuous and egregious
violations of the sex/gender discrimination and retaliation.
Plaintiff Wiltz likewise bring claims on an individual basis for,
inter alia: i) Defendants' continuous and egregious violations of
the race/national origin discrimination and retaliation provisions
of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL; and ii) disability discrimination and
retaliation provisions of the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.
The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendant
New Start under the role of sales representatives.
New Start Capital LLC is a financial services and advisory
firm.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
Jennifer Calamia, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Avenue
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
E-mail: cg@belllg.com
jcalamia@belllg.com
NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Stay Discovery in Elisa Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elisa W., et al., v. City
of New York, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05273-KMW-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Kimba Wood entered an order denying the Defendants'
letter-motions to stay discovery.
The parties are directed to meet and confer by Nov. 7, 2024 to
proceed with full merits discovery, including the plaintiffs' three
"priority discovery requests" enumerated in the parties' Sept. 23,
2024 joint letter.
By Dec. 5, 2024, the parties shall submit a joint letter detailing
the current status of the priority discovery requests and a
proposed discovery schedule.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C6txPz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC.
355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 795-4456
- and -
Antony L. Ryan, Esq.
Justin C. Clarke, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Two Manhattan West
375 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 474-1000
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN: Class Settlement in Rzepkoski Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. TERRY RZEPKOSKI and
KRISTEN ASSELTA, on behalf of Nova University Defined Contribution
Plan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 0:22-cv-61147-WPD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Dimitrouleas entered an order
preliminarily approving class action settlement:
-- The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement
Class
for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1) in this litigation (hereinafter the “Settlement
Class”):
"All persons who were participants or beneficiaries of the Plan
at
any time during the Class Period."
The "Class Period" shall be defined as April 1, 2016 through
Sept.
30, 2024.
A person was a participant in or beneficiary of the Plan during
the Class Period if they had an account balance in the Plan
during
such period.
The Court finds that Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and McKay
Law,
LLC, have and will continue to represent fairly and adequately
the
interests of the Settlement Class.
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(2)
the Nova offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional degree
programs for students.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z9PtB4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PALM BEACH TAN: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Destiny Williams of Kilpatrick in an article for JDSupra reports
that A North Carolina federal district court recently denied a
motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") based on the receipt
of text message solicitations. Hudson v. Palm Beach Tan, Inc., No.
1:23CV486(WO)(JEP), 2024 WL 4190513 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 12, 2024),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:23-cv-486, 2024 WL 4188310
(M.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 2024).
Alex Hudson alleged that Palm Beach Tan violated the TCPA by
repeatedly sending him and other putative class members text
message solicitations, even though he had added his cell phone
number to the national Do-Not-Call registry in 2009 and repeatedly
requested that Palm Beach Tan stop sending him messages. 2024 WL
4190513, at *1.
Palm Beach Tan moved to dismiss Hudson's claims for three reasons:
(1) Subsection 227(c) of the TCPA only applies to residential
telephones only and excludes cell phones; (2) this same TCPA
subsection only applies to voice calls and excludes text messages;
and (3) internal do-not-call lists do not grant a private right of
action. Id. at *3.
The North Carolina court denied the motion to dismiss on all three
grounds.
First, the court found that the vast majority of case law in North
Carolina and elsewhere supported treating cell phones as
residential phones for purposes of Subsection 227(c) of the TCPA.
Id. at *3-4 (citing to Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 311 F.R.D.
384 (M.D.N.C. 2015), aff'd, 925 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 2019)
(certifying a TCPA class that included landline and cell phone
numbers)). Id. The court also found that treating cell phones as
residential phones was supported by subsections 227(c)(2) and
227(d) of the TCPA and the applicable FCC regulations. Id. at
*4-5.
Second, the court found that the TCPA statutory text, FCC
regulations and guidance, and prior precedent supported the
conclusion that the receipt of text messages, as compared to voice
calls, is still actionable under the TCPA because the TCPA
recognizes "text calls as a type of call," so "a text message would
presumably be a form of telephone call under Sec. 227(c)(5)." Id.
at *8.
Third, the court found that based on the Krakauer case and other
relevant Fourth Circuit authority, there was "clear authority" to
grant private rights of action for violation of internal
do-not-call lists under the TCPA and FCC regulations. Id. at *9.
Takeaway: The Hudson case reemphasizes that for purposes of the
TCPA, a cell phone may constitute a residential phone, a text
message may constitute a telephone call, and a plaintiff may bring
a private right of action for violations of internal do-not-call
lists. [GN]
PHUNG ENTERPRISES: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHUNG ENTERPRISES, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08069 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://caitlynminimalist.com to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
June 17, 2024, in an attempt to purchase an Endless Love Locket
Necklace from Defendant and to view the information on the Website,
the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her
a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to
locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to
broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other
barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Phung Enterprises operates the Caitlyn Minimalist online retail
store, as well as the Caitlyn Minimalist interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
PINNACLE TOO: Bids for Summary Judgment Due Dec. 9
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Charles, v. Pinnacle Too,
LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-04232-DEH-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order granting the extension of
the deadline to move for summary judgment:
-- Motions for summary judgment are now due by Dec. 9, 2024
-- Responses are due by Dec. 27, 2024
-- Replies are due by Jan. 13, 2025
On Sept. 30, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for Class
Certification of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims, pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in doing so
denied as moot Plaintiff’s motion for Final Collective
Certification.
By that Order, the Defendants' class list is due by October 30,
2024.
On Oct. 15, 2024, the Court entered an Order denying as moot
Defendants' motion to decertify the conditionally certified class.
Pinnacle is "an electrical contractor for commercial and
residential properties throughout New York City."
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V4Ejue at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: info@leelitigation.com
POLYGLASS USA: Mediation in Castro Reset to Dec. 17
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANILKA CASTRO, v.
POLYGLASS USA INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01059-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge William Arbuckle entered an order granting joint request to
reschedule the mediation:
-- The rescheduled mediation shall take place on Dec. 17, 2024,
via
Zoom as follows:
-- First, a Zoom meeting with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel
shall
be conducted at 9:00 a.m. on Dec. 17, 2024
-- Second, a Zoom meeting with Defendant and Defendant's counsel
shall be conducted at 10:00 a.m. on Dec. 17, 2024
-- Finally, a Zoom meeting of all Parties and counsel shall begin
at
11:00 a.m. on Dec. 17, 2024.
-- The deadline for filing of motions for Rule 23 Class
Certification
and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Conditional Certification
shall remain Jan. 10, 2025.
Polyglass is a manufacturer of modified bitumen roofing and
waterproofing membranes, insulation and roof coatings.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8mhgXp at no extra
charge.[CC]
RAY JONES: Back Wins Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL BACK as Proposed
Class Representative, v. RAY JONES TRUCKING, INC. et al., Case No.
4:22-cv-00005-GNS-HBB (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers
entered an order as follows:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification is
granted, and Count II of this action shall be maintained as a
plaintiff class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) by the
Plaintiff
as class representative on behalf of the class, defined as
"All current and former truck driver employees of Ray Jones
Trucking, Inc. who were not paid at an overtime rate of pay
for
such employee's work in excess of forty hours in one or more
workweeks since Jan. 8, 2017, despite the employee qualifying
for overtime compensation."
Attorney Mark Foster is appointed as class counsel as he
meets
all of the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(g).
Plaintiff Samuel Back is appointed as class representative.
By Nov. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff and Defendants shall meet and
confer, through counsel, regarding: (i) the content and form
of
notice to be given to the Rule 23 class members; (ii) a joint
proposed judicial notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2); and (iii)
a
proposed notice process by both regular mail and email.
By December 2, 2024, Defendants shall provide Plaintiff, by
email and in hard copy, a list of the full name and last
known
mailing address of each current and former employee fitting
the
class description, their dates of employment, and their last
known personal email address.
2. Defendants' Motion to Decertify Plaintiff's Conditionally
Certified Class under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards
Act ("FLSA") is denied.
3. The stay previously imposed by the Court is lifted, and the
Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment with 51 days from entry of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order or, if earlier, 21 days after
Plaintiff files a dispositive motion, to file a response. Any
reply shall be filed in accordance with LR 7.1(c)
The Plaintiff was an employee driver for Ray Jones who contends he,
as well as many other employees, were denied overtime compensation
due to them under the FLSA and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
("KWHA").
Ray Jones is a Kentucky corporation that transports commercial
materials including coal within the state of Kentucky.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hEcBgE at no extra
charge.[CC]
RICE DRILLING: Must Oppose Gregor Class Cert Bid by Jan. 10, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY GREGOR, et al., v.
RICE DRILLING D, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03999-EPD (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers granting the joint
motion to amend the preliminary pretrial order.
-- The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed by no later than Jan. 10, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to class
certification shall be filed by no later than Jan. 31, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GIkKM at no extra
charge.[CC]
S.USA LIFE: Anderson Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. S.USA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-09101 (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff brings this suit in an effort to stop telemarketers
like Defendant from calling her and putative Class members' phones
despite the fact that they registered their phone numbers on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry. She asserts that she did not provide
any form of consent to Defendant to contact her on phone before she
received the calls at issue.
S.USA Life Insurance Company, Inc. engages in selling insurance
products and services, including, but not limited to, final expense
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540-5505
Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
kctang@millershah.com
- and -
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
E-mail: CRoberts@butschroberts.com
SMTC MANUFACTURING: Rodriguez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled PAULA DUPONT RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMTC
MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 23CV041929, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on October 23, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07398 to the
proceeding.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants (1) failed to pay all
wages including minimum and overtime wages; (2) failed to provide
proper meal periods; (3) failed to provide proper rest periods; (4)
failed to reimburse necessary business expenditures; (5) failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) failed to pay timely
final wages; and (7) engaged in unfair competition.
SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of California provides end-to-end
electronics manufacturing services.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Julie A. Dunne, Esq.
Joseph J. Kim, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
San Diego, CA 92121-2133
Telephone: (858) 677-1400
Facsimile: (858) 677-1401
E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com
joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Must File Amended Pleadings Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order ), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an
order as follows:
(1) Counsel for Premera must provide court staff with the sealed
materials that should have been docketed with the original
class certification pleadings, clearly identifying those
materials by the ECF number associated with the original
pleadings;
(2) Counsel for Premera must file a motion for leave to file
amended class certification pleadings under seal; and
(3) if that motion is granted, counsel for Premera must provide
court staff with the sealed materials that are to be
docketed
with the amended class certification pleadings, clearly
identifying those materials by the ECF number associated
with
the amended pleadings.
The nature of suit states Antitrust -- Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Must File Amended Pleadings Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-12918 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order as follows:
(1) Counsel for Premera must provide court staff with the sealed
materials that should have been docketed with the original
class certification pleadings, clearly identifying those
materials by the ECF number associated with the original
pleadings;
(2) Counsel for Premera must file a motion for leave to file
amended class certification pleadings under seal; and
(3) if that motion is granted, counsel for Premera must provide
court staff with the sealed materials that are to be
docketed
with the amended class certification pleadings, clearly
identifying those materials by the ECF number associated
with
the amended pleadings.
The nature of suit states Antitrust -- Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross, v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the end-payor
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class;
(2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel;
(3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and
(4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 23, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OKWkO7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TRIPLE LEAF: Smith Suit Alleges Mislabeled Herbal Teas
------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SMITH and SHERI TARVIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs v.
TRIPLE LEAF TEA, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-07386 (N.D. Cal., October 23, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, and violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair
Competition Law.
The suit is brought as a consumer protection class action by
Plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of Triple Leaf brand products
and the general public.
According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely advertises
certain of its tea products by putting deceptive and misleading
claims on the label. Specifically, the labeling states that the
products contain "Potent Chinese purification herbs" that are "used
to support the healthy function of the liver, kidneys, lungs and
blood." These statements convey the message that the products are
good for the liver, but this is not accurate. For some who consume
Defendant's tea according to its express instructions, it can harm
the liver. This class action seeks to put an end to Defendant’s
illegal advertising practices and hold Defendant accountable for
the damages it has caused and continues to cause, says the suit.
Triple Leaf Tea, Inc. offers coffee and tea, health and wellness,
and personal care products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William L. Smith, Esq.
Anapol Weiss, Esq.
6060 Center Drive, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (202) 780-3014
Facsimile: (202) 780-3678
E-mail: wsmith@anapolweiss.com
- and -
Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
Kevin W. Fay, Esq.
D. Patrick Huyett, Esq.
ANAPOL WEISS
One Logan Square
130 N. 18th Street, #1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 985-9177
E-mail: rgolomb@anapolweiss.com
kfay@anapolweiss.com
phuyett@anapolweiss.com
VICTORS SUSHI: Parties Must File Class Status Report by Nov. 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garrett, et al., v.
Victors Sushi, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00730 (D. Colo., Filed
March 15, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order on motion to
certify class.
-- In light of the resolution reached between the Parties at the
Case
Management Conference held on Oct. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff's
motion to certify class is denied without prejudice.
-- On or before Nov. 29, 2024, the Parties shall file a joint
status
report informing the Court of the Status of a final Settlement
Agreement and whether this case may be administratively
closed.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
VISA INC: Faces Multiple Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Sulaiman Abdur-Rahman, writing for National Law Journal, reports
that at least four antitrust class actions allege Visa forced
merchants and consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for
debit card transactions, mirroring the allegations of a U.S.
Department of Justice complaint.
What You Need to Know
-- Bathaee Dunne, Burns Charest, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy and
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll have filed antitrust class actions
against Visa Inc.
-- This litigation surge follows a U.S. Department of Justice
complaint accusing Visa of maintaining an unlawful debit network
services monopoly.
-- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer and Wilkinson Stekloff represent
Visa in the DOJ antitrust case.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have filed multiple antitrust class actions
against Visa Inc. following the Sept. 24 U.S. Department of Justice
complaint alleging the global payments company maintains an
unlawful monopoly in U.S. debit card network services markets.
At least four class actions filed in New York or California federal
courts since Oct. 1 allege Visa has forced merchants and consumers
to pay artificially inflated prices for debit card transactions.
All of these lawsuits demand treble or triple damages and an
injunction that would end Visa's alleged anticompetitive
practices.
The litigation surge was surfaced by Law.com Radar.
Burns Charest sued Visa in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of Yabla Inc. Oct. 22 -- the same
date Bathaee Dunne filed a class action in the Northern District of
California on behalf of TD Bank Visa debit card customer Richard
Pantano.
"Visa prevents innovators and rivals from meaningfully competing
with Visa, forcing merchants to remain in overpriced contracts and
try to recoup those absurd costs from their customers through
surcharges and higher prices," Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy alleged
in a complaint filed Oct. 21 on behalf of Nuts for Candy in the
SDNY.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll accused Visa of violating the Sherman
Act in an antitrust complaint filed in the SDNY Oct. 1 on behalf of
All Wrapped Up Signs and Graphix.
Similar to the DOJ complaint, all four class actions accuse Visa of
using exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct without any legal
justification.
CPM and Burns Charest in their complaints cite the following
statement from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland alleging
"Visa's unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing --
but the price of nearly everything."
The Justice Department filed its complaint in the SDNY Sept. 24
seeking injunctions that would prohibit Visa from imposing fees on
debit transactions routed over non-Visa networks and from imposing
contractual limitations on potential competitors, among other
restraints.
More than 60% of U.S. debit transactions run on Visa's debit
network, and the San Francisco-based company charges more than $7
billion in related fees annually, according to the allegations in
the DOJ and class action complaints.
When the Justice Department or Federal Trade Commission file
antitrust complaints, it typically inspires the class action bar to
consider bringing similar claims on behalf of plaintiffs seeking
damages.
Wilkinson Stekloff and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer represent Visa
in the DOJ antitrust case. Visa did not respond to a request for
comment on this article.
Visa General Counsel Julie Rottenberg in a September statement
called the DOJ's allegations "meritless." [GN]
WELLFLEET GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Moraes Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE MORAES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. WELLFLEET GROUP, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-30131 (D. Mass., Oct. 25,
2024) is a class action against Wellfleet for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' personally identifiable information and
protected health information, including full name, mailing address,
insurance group/policy number, school ID number, and medical/health
information, from unauthorized, public disclosure.
On Oct. 14, 2024 Wellfleet filed official notice of a data security
incident with the Office of the Texas Attorney General, as well as
with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for
Civil Rights. Unfortunately for Plaintiff and other similarly
situated individuals, the Private Information revealed in the Data
Incident contained highly sensitive health data, representing a
gold mine for data thieves, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs contend that there has been no assurance offered by
Wellfleet that it has adequately enhanced its data security
practices sufficient to avoid a similar incident from occurring in
the future.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and are at an
imminent, immediate, and continuing increased risk of suffering,
ascertainable losses in the form of harm from identity theft and
other fraudulent misuse of their Private Information, the loss of
the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses incurred to
remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data Incident, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the Data Incident, the suit added.
Wellfleet, formerly known as Consolidated Health Plans, delivers
customer-centric accident and health insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 265-5622
E-mail: cxenides@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
WESTLAKE WELLBEING: Smith Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIA SMITH, individually and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), Plaintiff v. WESTLAKE
WELLBEING PROPERTIES, LLC; DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24VECV04398 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 12,
2024) is an enforcement action under the Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, California Labor Code, to recover
civil penalties and any other available relief on behalf of
Plaintiff, the State of California, and other current and former
employees who worked for Defendants in California and who suffered
at least one violation of the state law.
The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage
for all hours worked, failure to provide compliant wage statements,
waiting time penalties, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, and engagement in unfair competition.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants to provide services as a
non-exempt employee in California from August 2022 until November
2023.
Westlake Wellbeing Properties is a California Corporation with its
principal place of business in Westlake Village within the County
of Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy B. Del Castillo, Esq.
Kent L. Bradbury, Esq.
CASTLE LAW: CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT COUNSEL, PC
2999 Douglas Blvd., Suite 180
Roseville, CA 95661
Telephone: (916) 245-0122
E-mail: tdc@castleemploymentlaw.com
kb@castleemploymentlaw.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 ***