/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241111.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 11, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 226
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Ard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Evensen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Golden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hollenshead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Tracy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Zielinski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
AAA STAFFING: Eck Sues to Challenge Timekeeping and Pay Practices
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Dyar Class Suit in Tennessee
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Kachrodia Class Suit in Tennessee
ACEROS DE AMERICA: IZQ Construction Sue Over Rebar Market Monopoly
ADENA HEALTH: Jarrell's Class Expert Disclosure Due April 17, 2025
AEROVATE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Jade Biosciences
AGA SERVICE: Settlement Deal in Elgindy Suit Gets Final Nod
AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Hays Says
ALIBABA GROUP: Settles Securities Class Action for $433.5-Mil.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Suit Seeks to Certify Claims
AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rittmann Due Dec. 27
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Court Tosses Vaccaro Suit w/o Prejudice
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 12, 2025
AMERICAN CLINICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wedzik Alleges
AMERICAN CRUISE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kirk Suit Due Dec. 13
ASCENSION HEALTH: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Plesha Says
AUTOBELL CAR: Pauken Alleges Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
AUTONEUM NORTH: Underpays Machine Operators, Graham Says
BCE-MACH LLC: Hearing to Certify Class Continued to Nov. 20
BELLE TIRE: Abington Cole Investigates Data Breach
BIO-LAB INC: Hamilton Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
BIOLAB INC: Faces Class Action Over Damages After Chemical Fire
BLOCKCHAIN INDUSTRIES: Case Management Conference Order Entered
BLUE APRON: Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Continued to Feb. 4, 2025
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
BRAKE PARTS: Saucedo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Cyber Securities Suit
BUCKLE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CASA MARZAM: Face Price Fixing Class Action Suit in Mexico
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, E.S. Suit Says
CHICAGO, IL: O'Donnell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
CHUBBY SNACKS: Faces Gelin Suit Over Deceptive Sandwich Labels
COMERICA BANK: Conduent's Request to Seal Documents Granted
CONTAINER STORE: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
CORMEDIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
CREDITORS RELIEF: Bid to Dismiss Cardenas Class Suit Tossed
CROSS RIVER: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
CVS HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in OPI Suit Due Sept. 30, 2025
CVS HEALTH: HIV-Positive Individuals Seek to Certify Class Suit
DANZAS CORP: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Williams
DC PORTFOLIO: Class Settlement in Burrows Suit Gets Final Nod
DIRECT DIGITAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Disclosures
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fischer Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Opposition
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
ELANCO ANIMAL: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims
ELI LILLY & CO: Actos Class Suit Oral Argument Ongoing
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in N.Y.
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Insulin Pricing Class Suit
ELON MUSK: Canvassers Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ENOVIX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
ENOVIX CORP: Continues to Defend Walker Class Suit
EQT CORP: Securities Class Suit Trial Date Not Yet Set
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Investors
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
FLUX POWER: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
FLUX POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
FORTIVE CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Cazares Says
FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zavala Says
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
GDS HOLDINGS: Class Settlement Hearing Set for February 10
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Practices
GROUP 2029: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Williams
HARD ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Syla Suit Alleges
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Henkel Appeals Wage Suit Judgment to 3rd Circuit
HRM RESOURCES: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McCormick Suit
HUMANA INC: Continues to Defend Stockholders Class Suit in Delaware
HYDRAFACIAL LLC: Sued Over Malfunctioning Skin Health Machine
IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit
INSPIRATO INC: Continues to Defend Koch Class Suit in Colorado
J.H.O.C. INC: Williams Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
KANAWHA, VA: Class Cert Bids in G.T. Suit Due Dec. 20
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Seeks to Certify Four Classes
KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Castillo Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
LG ENERGY: Faces Mathies Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mich.
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Continues to Defend Food Safety Class Action
MATTEL INC: Final OK Hearing on Settlement Set for Jan. 28, 2025
MDL 2873: Conways Alleges Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Garcia Alleges Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MERRICK PARK: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
MICAH REED: Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge
MICHIGAN: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set for Dec. 20
MRB2024 LLC: Contestants File Suit Over Labor Law Violations
MY DAILY: Filing for Consolidated Class Suit Extended to Nov. 25
MYNARIC AG: Torstorff Sues Over Drop in Share Price
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 22
NEW ENCHANTMENT: Class Settlement in Davila Suit Gets Initial Nod
NEW YORK BAKERY: Faces Pollitt Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Wood Appeals Summary Judgment to 5th Cir.
NORTHERN TERRITORY STOLEN: Claimants Disappointed With Payouts
NOVOCURE LIMITED: Continues to Defend LUNAR Clinical Trial Suit
NURTURE INC: Sanchez Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Documents
NURX INC: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
OAK AND BARREL: Pollitt Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
ONEPOINT PATIENT: Schubert Jonckheer Investigates Data Breach
OTTAWA, ON: Bus Crash Class Action to Proceed as Individual Case
PACIFIC RIM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 6, 2025
PAMS LUNCH: Charges Junk Fees in School Lunch, Price Suit Alleges
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Cho Sues Over Sharing Users' Personal Info
PAUL SCHNELL: Roybal Seeks to Certify Class Action
PENUMBRA INC: $4.6MM Settlement in PAGA Suit Gets Initial OK
PJJD LLC: Howard Suit Alleges PUMP Act Violations
PLAINS ALL: Oil Spill Class Suit Settlement Gets Finalized
PROFIRE ENERGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First CECO
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Suit Alleges Unfair Vehicle Insurance Claims
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 28, 2025
RAPID RESPONSE: Class Cert Discovery in Cole Due August 29, 2025
READING INTERNATIONAL: Parties Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule
REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Victory Alleges
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Joint Rule 26(f) Report in Vines Class Suit OK'd
ROBERT LUNA: Boyd Bid for Class Certification Tossed
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Discovery Deadline Remains Dec. 1
SALESFORCE INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Nixed w/o Prejudice
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Settlement Deal Reached in Stockholder Suit
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bennett Due Nov. 12
SEASUCKER LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
SELECT REHABILITATION: Allowed to Correct Docket on Deadline
SIRVA RELOCATION: Rivera Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info
SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL: Oakleaf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Staff
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayoub Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Christiansen Seeks to Certify Action
STAKE CENTER: Court Sets Hearing for Nov. 14
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Grissom Gets Initial Nod
STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Jones Class Suit
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Elliott Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Info
SWIFT PORK: Seeks to Strike Expert Report in Vali Suit
SWITZERLAND: Investors Class Action Suit Funded by Omni Bridgeway
TALKDESK INC: Lien Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Status Conference in Reed Set for Dec. 10
TARGET CORP: Class Cert Initial Disclosures in Boyd Due Nov. 14
TARGET CORPORATION: Merritt Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
TEN OAKS MANAGEMENT: Munro Sues Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice
TENNESSEE HOUSING: Robbins Sues Over Discrimination
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Richardson Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
TICKETMASTER LLC: McIntosh Suit Transferred to D. Montana
TOTAL RENAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Due Sept. 30, 2025
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Syed Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
TRADEZERO AMERICA: Lim Files Suit in D. Delaware
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Must Submit Response to Class Cert by Nov. 12
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Browne Sues Over Misleading Marketing
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Rugg-Harrell Sues Over Contaminated Products
TRUIST BANK: Class Cert. Bid in Troung Amended to June 5, 2025
TRUIST BANK: Misappropriated Funds From Investors, Eason Alleges
TYSON FOODS: Pearson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Standing Order Entered in Ramirez−Fort
VALVE CORP: Monopolizes PC Game Distribution Market, Drake Says
VGV HOLDING: Residents Sue Over Illegal Gambling and Fraud
VISA INC: NDA Aesthetics Sues Over Monopoly of Debit Network Market
VISA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval
VOIP-PAL.COM INC: Files for Pretrial Consolidation of Class Suits
WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition
WHITEHORSE, YT: Bids to Dismiss Accessibility Class Action
WILLIAMS RUSH: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in Fla.
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
WM TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 16
YEEZY APPAREL: Settles Former Employee Class Action Lawsuit
ZOCDOC INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
[*] Mass. Court Rejects Use of Wiretap Statute in Class Suits
*********
3M COMPANY: Ard Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ard, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05081-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Navy.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Evensen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Evensen, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05092-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Golden Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Golden, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05071-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Air Force.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hollenshead Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams
---------------------------------------------------------
William Hollenshead, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-05091-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Tracy Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Tracy, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-05080-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Navy.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
3M COMPANY: Zielinski Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Zielinski, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION;
ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.;
CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD
INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.;
DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX
CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-05057-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 13,
2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries 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.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. 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.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of 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 during the Plaintiff's service in the United
States Army.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
AAA STAFFING: Eck Sues to Challenge Timekeeping and Pay Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cari Eck, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
AAA STAFFING, LLC, RAE-ANN WESTLAKE, INC. d/b/a/ RAE-ANN WESTLAKE
NURSING AND REHABILITATION and JOSEPH FRIEDMAN, Case No.
1:24-cv-01862-PAG (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 25, 2024), is brought
challenging the Defendants' timekeeping and pay practices by which
they willfully violated their employees' rights under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and Ohio's common law of unjust
enrichment.
The Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the Potential Opt-Ins were
entitled to compensation for all hours worked and overtime
compensation for hours over 40 in a workweek under both federal and
state law, or acted in a reckless disregard for whether they were
so entitled. The Defendants intentionally and willfully
circumvented the requirements of the FLSA. Defendants designed
their scheduling, timekeeping, and payroll policies and practices
in an attempt to reduce employees' paid hours and circumvent
federal and state wage and-hour laws.
The Defendants knew that non-exempt employees regularly and
routinely worked without meal breaks, and intentionally failed to
establish a reasonable process for reporting missed meals. Thus,
with actual knowledge that non-exempt employees were required to
work through meals, Defendants persisted with an unreasonable
process for reporting missed meal breaks. Defendants further
intentionally setup their payroll so as to miscalculate employees'
regular rates of pay, with actual knowledge that they were
underpaying employees' overtime wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' skilled nursing and
rehabilitation facility.
AAA Staffing, LLC is a domestic limited liability company
headquartered in Mahoning County, Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Kathleen R. Harris, Esq.
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Phone: 216-308-1522
Fax: 888-604-9299
Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Dyar Class Suit in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
70020cxReport for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2024, that the Company faces the Dyar class suit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
On October 29, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain former and current officers in the
lawsuit styled Dyar v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01300, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting
of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February
28, 2020 and October 18, 2024, and alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is an American provider of
for-profit behavioral healthcare services.[BN]
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Kachrodia Class Suit in Tennessee
----------------------------------------------------------
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
70020cxReport for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2024, that the Company faces the Kachrodia class suit in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
On October 16, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain former and current officers in the
lawsuit styled Kachrodia v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01238, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting
of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between February
28, 2020 and September 26, 2024, and alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On October 21, 2024, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed, asserting the same claims but expanding the proposed class
period to October 18, 2024.
Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. is an American provider of
for-profit behavioral healthcare services.[BN]
ACEROS DE AMERICA: IZQ Construction Sue Over Rebar Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
IZQ CONSTRUCTION LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACEROS DE AMERICA, INC.; CAROLINA
BUILDING MATERIALS, INC.; CAROLINA BUILDING LLC; STEEL SERVICES &
SUPPLIES, INC.; THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS TRADING GMBH a/k/a
THYSSENKRUPP MANNEX GMBH; THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS N.A., INC.;
THYSSENKRUPP AG; JUAN C. APONTE-TOLENTINO; EDGARDO SOLA-COLON;
FRANCIS GARCIA-HAGHVERDIAN; NORBERT GOERTZ; RALF GENDRUSCHKE;
CO-CONSPIRATORS A through Z; Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01492
(D.P.R., Oct. 25, 2024) alleges violation of the Sherman Act and
the Puerto, and Puerto Rico Antimonopoly Act of 1964.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants are
engaged in illegal and anticompetitive practices to engage in a
long-running, illegal, horizontal conspiracy to restrain trade and
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices in the market for steel
products, including steel reinforcing bar ("Rebar") causing
inflated prices for Rebar to Plaintiff and the Class and harming
competition in the market for Rebar in Puerto Rico and elsewhere.
Over an eight-year period, from 2015 through 2022, including
critical reconstruction periods in Puerto Rico following Hurricanes
Irma and Maria in 2017, Defendants explicitly conspired to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices Rebar, that were sold to
hardware stores, contractors, construction companies, and others in
Puerto Rico and elsewhere. Defendants also artificially reduced
output of Rebar by creating shortages and coordinating reduced
shipments of Rebar to Puerto Rico, creating cover for price
increases. This maximized Defendants' profits at the expense of
Puerto Rican purchasers of Rebar. The Defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of Rebar, restricted competition,
and harmed consumers, says the suit.
Aceros De America Inc. distributes retail and wholesale
construction materials and related hardware. The Company provides
general hardware, pipes, tubes, plywood, lumber, rebars, wire,
fence, structural and ornamental steel, and roofing products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis V. Almeida-Olivieri, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: lalmeida@milberg.com
- and -
Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
Elizabeth McKenna, Esq.
Michael Acciavatti, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com
emckenna@milberg.com
macciavatti@milberg.com
ADENA HEALTH: Jarrell's Class Expert Disclosure Due April 17, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robin Jarrell, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Adena Health
System, Case No. 2:24-cv-00282-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Chelsey Vascura entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion
to amend the case schedule as below:
Disclosure of Plaintiff's Class Expert April 17, 2025
and Plaintiff's Class Expert Reports:
Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Class June 6, 2025
Certification and Disclosure of Defendant's
Class Expert and Defendant's Class Expert
Reports:
Defendant's Opposition to Class July 31, 2025
Certification/Motion to Exclude
Plaintiff's Class Expert Reports:
Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Class Sept. 11, 2025
Certification:
Discovery Deadline: 90 days following
Class Certification
ruling
Merits Expert Reports Due: 120 days following
Class Certification
ruling
Dispositive Motion Deadline: 150 days following
Class Certification
ruling
Adena is an independent, not-for-profit and locally controlled
health care organization.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rDtshh at no extra
charge.[CC]
AEROVATE THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Jade Biosciences
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm" ),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Aerovate Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVTE), relating
to a proposed merger with Jade Biosciences. Under the terms of the
agreement, pre-merger Aerovate stockholders are expected to own
approximately 1.6% of the combined company, while pre-merger Jade
stockholders are expected to own approximately 98.4% of the
combined entity.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovate-therapeutics-inc-avte/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AGA SERVICE: Settlement Deal in Elgindy Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM ELGINDY, et al., v.
AGA SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:20-cv-06304-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order as follows:
1. The Court confirms certification of the class for settlement
purposes only.
2. The Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement
agreement and plan of allocation.
3. The Court grants Class Counsel $4,937,500 in attorney's fees.
4. The Court grants Class Counsel $188,870.47 in expenses.
5. The Court grants an incentive award of $5,000 to each of the
named Plaintiffs.
6. Class Members who asked to opt out of the settlement are
excluded from the class.
7. Class Counsel shall file a post-distribution accounting
within
21 days after all funds have been paid under the settlement
agreement and any checks that were issued have become stale.
8. The Court will withhold 10% of the attorney's fees granted in
this order until the post-distribution accounting has been
filed.
9. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this
settlement
solely for the purposes of enforcing this agreement,
addressing
settlement administration matters, and addressing such post-
judgment as may be appropriate under Court rules and
applicable
law.
10. This matter is set for a further case management conference
on
April 8, 2025.
The proposed settlement agreement resolves the claims between
Defendants and the Settlement Class, defined as follows:
"All persons, except excluded persons, who purchased at least
one
or more (a) qualifying California Travel and/or Event Protection
Plan from Sept. 4, 2016, through and including the date the
Order
Granting Preliminary Approval is entered and, for that purchase,
provided a billing address in the State of California or if no
billing address was supplied directly to AGA, the Travel and/or
Event Protection plan identified the plan owner as having a
California address and/or (b) Qualifying Washington Travel
and/or
Event Protection Plan from April 2, 2018, through and including
the
date the Order Granting Preliminary Approval is entered, and,
for
that purchase, provided a billing address in the State of
Washington or if no billing address was supplied directly to
AGA,
the Travel and/or Event Protection Plan identified the plan
owner
as having a Washington address."
The class excludes (a) each and every presiding District Judge
and
Magistrate Judge in the Actions, and their staff, and their
immediate family members; (b) the officers, directors, agents,
servants, and current and former employees of Defendants who
were
employed by Defendants at any time on or after the start of the
Class Periods, and the immediate family members of such Persons;
(c) any Person who received a complete refund for each and every
Qualifying Travel and/or Event Protection Plan purchased by that
Person; (d) any Person for whom AGA opened and documented an
assistance case in connection with each and every Qualifying
Travel
and/or Event Protection Plan purchased by that Person; and (e)
any
Person for whom each purchased Qualifying Travel and/or Event
Protection Plan falls outside this Settlement because the Person
received a complete refund for the purchased Qualifying Travel
and/or Event Protection Plan or AGA opened and documented an
assistance case in connection with the purchased Qualifying
Travel
and/or Event Protection Plan.
The Plaintiffs Adam Elgindy, Julianne Chuanroong, and Andrew
Tasakos brought this class action against Defendants AGA Service
Co. d/b/a Allianz Global Assistance, Jefferson Insurance Company,
and BCS Insurance Company for their alleged unlawful, unfair, and
deceptive practices relating to their online marketing and sale of
travel and event insurance.
AGA is a Financial Services based company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DONHd9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Hays Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.;
BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE- - DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC;
HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.;
MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC;
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN
MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.; a W.L. GORE & & ASSOCIATES INC.;
and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06127-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 25, 2024) is an action for
damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with
knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS,
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 otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and products added to AFFF or TOG
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, says the
suit.
AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. manufactures specialty chemicals. The
Company offers glass, electronic displays, and chemical products
including resins, water and oil repellants, greenhouse films,
silica additives, and various fluorointermediates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW, LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4400
Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
ALIBABA GROUP: Settles Securities Class Action for $433.5-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Monthly reports that in a significant development for the
e-commerce giant Alibaba Group, the company has reached a
settlement of $433.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit
brought by shareholders. The lawsuit accused Alibaba of misleading
investors regarding its exclusivity practices, which allegedly
violated federal securities laws. While Alibaba denies any
wrongdoing, the settlement marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing
scrutiny of the company's business practices.
Details of the Settlement
The announcement of the settlement came in a regulatory filing on
Friday, November 1, where Alibaba stated that it chose to settle to
avoid the costs and disruptions associated with protracted
litigation. This decision highlights the company's desire to move
forward and minimize further legal entanglements, despite the
claims against it. However, it is essential to note that this
settlement is contingent upon several conditions, including
approval from the court.
Background of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit was initiated in March 2023 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. It accused Alibaba of
breaching federal securities laws by making false statements about
its antitrust and exclusivity practices, which the plaintiffs claim
inflated the company's stock price, leading to financial losses for
investors.
The legal action was directed not only at Alibaba itself but also
at certain directors and officers of the company, representing all
investors who purchased or acquired the company's American
depositary shares between July 9, 2020, and December 23, 2020. This
timeframe is critical, as it encompasses the period when the
alleged misleading practices occurred.
Allegations of Exclusivity Practices
According to the lawsuit, during the specified period, Alibaba
enforced exclusivity practices that "required or coerced merchants
to sell exclusively on Alibaba platforms." This included penalizing
those who opted to sell on competing platforms, raising concerns
about the company's compliance with fair trading practices.
The lawsuit further claimed that Alibaba continued these practices
even after committing to halt them as part of an agreement with
China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) in July
2020. The SAMR is responsible for overseeing e-commerce and
enforcing anti-monopoly regulations in China, emphasizing the
severity of the allegations against Alibaba.
Implications for Investors
The settlement, while a significant financial commitment for
Alibaba, also serves as a warning signal to the broader market
about the importance of transparency and adherence to regulatory
standards. For shareholders, the resolution of this lawsuit may
provide some financial relief after a tumultuous period marked by
concerns over corporate governance and ethical business practices.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this settlement
highlights the challenges faced by major corporations in navigating
the complexities of compliance and investor relations. The
resolution of this case could set a precedent for how similar
lawsuits are approached in the future, particularly in the rapidly
growing and highly scrutinized e-commerce sector.
As Alibaba looks to move past this legal challenge, the settlement
serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with
operating in a global marketplace. With the court's approval still
pending, shareholders and market observers will be watching closely
to see how this case unfolds and what it means for Alibaba's future
operations and reputation. [GN]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Canchola Suit Seeks to Certify Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, et. al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Nov. 7, 2024, will move for an order
certifying their claim that the Defendant violated California Labor
Code section 2802 as a class defined as:
"All individuals who signed an Allstate R3001, R3001A, R3001S,
or
R3001C Exclusive Agency Agreement and who worked as an Allstate
exclusive agent in the State of California during the class
period."
The class period is from March 22, 2020—three years from the
filing of the complaint -- to the date the Court grants class
certification. This Motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
As explained in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, class
certification is appropriate because:
(1) the class has at least 973 individuals, making joinder of
all
class members impracticable;
(2) the identity of all class members is ascertainable from
Allstate's records;
(3) the misclassification issue and Allstate's liability for
failing to reimburse expenses presents common questions of
law
and fact that predominate;
(4) Plaintiffs' claim that Allstate violated Labor Code section
2802 is typical of the claims of the members of the putative
class;
(5) Plaintiffs and their attorneys are adequate representatives
for
the putative class; and
(6) class litigation is superior to the alternative of
individual
cases.
Allstate sells property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ghaqLJ at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles J. Crueger, Esq.
Erin K. Dickinson, Esq.
Benjamin Kaplan, Esq.
James Tilton, Esq.
CRUEGER DICKINSON LLC
4532 North Oakland Avenue
Whitefish Bay, WI 53211
Telephone: (414) 210-3868
E-mail: cjc@cruegerdickinson.com
ekd@cruegerdickinson.com
bak@cruegerdickinson.com
jlt@cruegerdickinson.com
- and -
Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
Mark R. Miller, Esq.
Matthew J. Goldstein, Esq.
WALLACE MILLER
150 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 626-9760
E-mail: eaw@wallacemiller.com
mrm@wallacemiller.com
mjg@wallacemiller.com
- and -
Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
601 S Figueroa St Suite 2050
Los Angeles, CA 90017
AMARIN CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corp. PLC 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 a consolidated securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.
On October 21, 2021, a purported investor in the Company's
publicly-traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, the former chief executive officer and the
former chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Vincent Dang v. Amarin Corporation plc,
John F. Thero and Michael W. Kalb, No. 1:21-cv-19212 (D.N.J. Oct.
21, 2021).
A subsequent case, Dorfman v. Amarin Corporation plc, et al., No.
3:21-cv-19911 (D.N.J. filed Nov. 10, 2021), was filed in November
2021.
In December 2021, several Amarin shareholders moved to consolidate
the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
The complaints in these actions are nearly identical and allege
that the Company misled investors by allegedly downplaying the risk
associated with the Company's patent litigation related to its
Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, that sought U.S. FDA
approval for the sale of generic versions of icosapent ethyl, or
ANDA litigation, and the risk that certain of the Company's patents
related to the MARINE indication would be invalidated.
Based on these allegations, plaintiff alleges that he purchased
securities at an inflated share price and brings claims under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 seeking unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
In October 2022, the court consolidated the cases and appointed a
lead plaintiff for the putative class.
On January 13, 2023, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
also named the former general counsel, and again alleged that the
Company made false statements regarding the ANDA litigation as well
as about the REDUCE-IT indication and VASCEPA's financial prospects
resulting from REDUCE-IT.
All defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint and on
September 25, 2024, the NJ District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss for all counts, without prejudice, permitting the
Plaintiffs 30 days to amend and refile their lawsuit.
The court subsequently granted on October 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs
request for an additional 30 days to amend and refile the
complaint.
The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously
defend against the claims if refiled but cannot predict the
outcome.
The Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if
any, associated with these claims.
Amarin Corporation plc, a pharmaceutical company, engages in the
development and commercialization of therapeutics for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Ethical Holdings plc and changed its name to
Amarin Corporation plc in 1999. Amarin Corporation plc was
incorporated in 1989 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rittmann Due Dec. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John C. Coughenour entered an order
establishing the following pre-certification deadlines:
Event Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiffs to Produce Nov. 8, 2024
Discovery from Opt-In Plaintiffs
Pursuant to Court Order:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to take the Dec. 6, 2024
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition and for
Defendants to Complete Plaintiff and
Opt-In Depositions, prior to which
Defendants may move to compel discovery
from the Named Plaintiffs if deficiencies
are not resolved:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion Dec. 27, 2024
for Class Certification:
Deadline for Defendants' Renewed Motion Dec. 27, 2024
to Compel Arbitration:
Deadline for Defendants' Opposition Feb. 28, 2025
to Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in March 21, 2025
support of the Motion for Class
Certification:
Any opt-in Plaintiffs who are unresponsive to the discovery
previously ordered by the deadline above shall be dismissed from
this action.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xjbrdJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM.DEDC LLC: Court Tosses Vaccaro Suit w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE VACCARO, and
JENNIFER CHIU, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered an order:
1. Granting Amazon's motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Vaccaro's
claims
are dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff Chiu's motion for class certification is denied.
3. Amazon's motion for summary judgment is denied.
4. The clerk is directed to terminate the motions pending at ECF
Nos. 99, 100, and 101.
Amazon.com.dedc retails auto parts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A2ZzjD at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 12, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTRISE WHITE, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00935-O (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge Reed O'Connor entered a preliminary scheduling order:
-- To amend pleadings and join parties: Feb. 14, 2025
-- Plaintiff's motion for class March 12, 2025
certification:
-- Defendant's response: within 21 days of Plaintiff filing her
Motion
-- Plaintiff's reply: within 14 days of Defendant filing its
response
Within 15 days following the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion
for class certification, the Parties shall submit a supplemental
joint report proposing the remaining pre-trial dates and deadlines.
American Airlines is a major airline in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=22Mtr6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN CLINICAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wedzik Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN WEDZIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN CLINICAL SOLUTIONS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 9:24-cv-81356-DMM (S.D. Fla., Oct. 30, 2024) is a class
action arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach
resulting from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and
industry standard data security practices.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their utter failure to protect its
customers' sensitive data.
Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing
the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes.
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard its customers'
Private Information and give its customers timely, adequate notice
of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, says the suit.
American Clinical Solutions LLC provides testing services. The
Company offers urine and oral fluid confirmation laboratory
toxicology services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
AMERICAN CRUISE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kirk Suit Due Dec. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kirk v. American Cruise
Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-01057 (D. Conn., Filed Aug. 8, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Victor A. Bolden entered an order granting motion
for extension of time.
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification Dec. 13, 2024
due by:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 17, 2024
-- Opposition to Class Certification due by: Jan. 12, 2025
-- Disclosure of affirmative expert reports Jan. 17, 2025
due by:
-- Reply re: Class Certification due on: Feb. 11, 2025
-- Disclosure of rebuttal expert reports Feb. 14, 2025
due by:
-- Depositions of expert witnesses shall April 1, 2025
be completed by:
-- All discovery shall close by: April 15, 2025
-- The parties may jointly file such April 22, 2025
a request by:
-- Dispositive motions due by: May 13, 2025
-- Responses to dispositive motions due by: June 10, 2025
-- Replies to dispositive motions due by: July 1, 2025
-- Joint trial memorandum is due by: Aug. 29, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
American Cruise is a river and small-ship cruise line in the United
States with its headquarters in Guilford, Connecticut.[CC]
ASCENSION HEALTH: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Plesha Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER L. PLESHA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH ALLIANCE,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01459 (E.D. Mo., October 30, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and breach of fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The Ascension Welfare Benefits
Plan does not provide the required reasonable alternative standard,
and even if it did, it has failed to adequately notify employees
about the availability of such an alternative in all its Plan
communications. Consequently, the Defendant's tobacco surcharge
violates ERISA's anti-discrimination provisions by imposing
additional costs on employees who use tobacco products without
meeting the legal requirements for a bona fide wellness program. As
a result of the imposition of the unlawful and discriminatory
tobacco surcharge, Campbell Soup enriched itself at the expense of
the Plan, resulting in it receiving a windfall, says the suit.
Ascension Health Alliance is a non-profit healthcare organization
headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
POSPISIL SWIFT, LLC
1600 Genessee St., Suite 340
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 895-6440
Facsimile: (816) 895-9161
Email: mdp@pslawkc.com
AUTOBELL CAR: Pauken Alleges Unauthorized Access of Clients' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REECE PAUKEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOBELL CAR WASH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00959-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C., October 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its network systems
following a data breach approximately between April 1, 2024 and
April 7, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Autobell Car Wash, LLC is a car wash company with its principal
place of business located in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
Email: dlietz@milberg.com
AUTONEUM NORTH: Underpays Machine Operators, Graham Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DANTE GRAHAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Named Plaintiff v. AUTONEUM NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-12805-RJW-CI (E.D. Mich., October 24,
2024) is a collective and class action complaint against the
Defendant for its willful failure to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees overtime wages as well as failure to
comply with all other requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant shortchanged its
non-exempt employees and failed to pay overtime compensation
through the unlawful practice of failing to pay all overtime hours
worked at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for
hours more than 40 hours per workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt
employee from approximately 2019 until the end of 2022. He worked
as a machine operator at Defendant's manufacturing/production
facility located in Aiken, South Carolina.
Autoneum North America, Inc. produces automobile materials,
components, and systems and operates manufacturing facilities
throughout the continental United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Telephone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Telephone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
E-mail: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
50 Public Square, Suite 1900
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
- and -
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
Strongsville, OH 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
BCE-MACH LLC: Hearing to Certify Class Continued to Nov. 20
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wake Energy, LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. BCE-Mach LLC
and BCE-Mach III LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00794-HE (W.D. Okla.), the
Hon. Judge Joe Heaton entered an order continuing the Nov. 4, 2024,
hearing to Certify Settlement Class to Nov. 20, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.
in Courtroom No. 501.
BCE-Mach provides petroleum refining services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PELg1W at no extra
charge.[CC]
BELLE TIRE: Abington Cole Investigates Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Abington Cole + Ellery is investigating the data breach recently
announced by Belle Tire.
Approximately 29,000 individuals were affected by the Belle Tire
data breach. Breached data may include, but is not necessarily
limited to: contact data (including names, addresses, and dates of
birth), Social Security numbers, and driver's license data.
Belle Tire recently reported a security incident involving the
potential exposure of personal information. On June 11, 2024, Belle
Tire identified unauthorized activity within its computer system
and responded promptly to halt this breach.
To support the investigation and containment, Belle Tire engaged an
external cybersecurity team and notified law enforcement. The
investigation later revealed that an unauthorized individual
accessed and duplicated certain data within Belle Tire's network.
On September 11, 2024, Belle Tire received confirmation indicating
that specific personal data linked to affected individuals may have
been accessed and copied.
The company continues to cooperate with law enforcement in
investigating the breach and has implemented additional security
measures to strengthen its computer systems against future
incidents.
As a result of the data breach, Belle Tire is offering 24 months of
free credit monitoring and/or identity theft protection services to
some affected individuals.
Additional information about the Belle Tire data breach may be
found here: Belle Tire Data Breach Notification (Maine).
About Belle Tire:
Belle Tire operates as a retailer and provider of services in the
Midwest region. The company began operations in 1922 in Detroit,
Michigan. It supplies brands and types of tires for cars, trucks,
and SUVs. Beyond selling tires, it offers services including wheel
alignment, brake repair, and battery installation.
Over the years, Belle Tire expanded operations from Michigan into
other states such as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The company
conducts business through retail locations and services available
online, enabling customers to purchase tires or schedule
appointments via its website. The online platform provides tools
for tire selection and comparison to assist customers in making
choices based on vehicle specifications and driving needs.
Belle Tire has gained a reputation in its market for accessibility
to types of vehicles and brands of tires, positioning itself as a
source for tire needs and services for vehicle maintenance. The
company's strategy for growth involves expansions into markets in
the Midwest, bringing services to areas urban and suburban. Its
approach to customer service includes experiences in-store and
online, reflecting a commitment to meet preferences of customers.
The Belle Tire Website may have additional information about or
provide periodic updates regarding the data breach.
For more information about steps you can take to possibly reduce
the chances harm arising from a data breach, please review the
following article: What are some steps you can take if you've been
the victim of a data breach?
If you believe you are a victim of the Belle Tire data breach, and
if you would like to volunteer to serve as a class representative
in a class action lawsuit regarding this data breach, please submit
your information via the form on this webpage. This website is not
associated with nor authorized by Belle Tire or any affiliated
companies. If you have received any other data breach
notifications, you may to review Abington Cole + Ellery's current
list of data breach investigations. [GN]
BIO-LAB INC: Hamilton Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-LAB INC., and KIK CUSTOM
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04866-SEG (N.D. Ga.,
October 24, 2024) arises from the Defendants' negligence,
recklessness, and failure to prevent the chemical fire and toxic
chemical plume that caused and continues to cause harm to Plaintiff
and the other proposed Class members.
As a result of Defendants' negligent, careless, reckless, and/or
intentional conduct in connection with the September 29, 2024
chemical fire and resulting toxic chemical plume, Plaintiff
Hamilton has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, an
increased risk of disease from exposure to and inhalation of toxic
chemicals, contamination of his property by egregiously high and
plainly dangerous levels of toxic chemicals dispersed by Defendants
into the air and water, and the loss of use and enjoyment of his
property and resulting inconvenience, disruption and emotional
distress, says the suit.
Bio-Lab Inc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing, storing,
and/or selling swimming pool and spa water care chemicals under
product names that include BioGuard, SpaGuard, Natural Chemistry,
SeaKlear, AquaPill, Coral Seas, ProGuard, and ProSeries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
HOLZER & HOLZER LLC
211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
Atlanta, GA 30346
Telephone: (770) 392-0090
Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
mdees@holzerlaw.com
- and -
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
John Bel Edwards, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD LLP
201 St. Charles Ave., 46th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
E-mail: sherman@fishmanhaygood.com
jedwards@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
pthibodeaux@fishmanhaygood.com
BIOLAB INC: Faces Class Action Over Damages After Chemical Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Chen and Catherine Nan of The Emory Wheel reports Rockdale
County commissioners launched a federal class-action lawsuit
against BioLab and its parent company, KIK Consumer Products, for
damages to local citizens and companies. The lawsuit, which
commissioners filed on Oct. 29, came a month after a chemical fire
erupted at the BioLab facility in Conyers, Ga, about six miles from
Oxford College.
The Rockdale County commissioners filed allegations, including
exposure to toxic chemicals, failure to warn the public and
significant environmental damage, against the plant after the fire
on Sept. 29. The Rockdale County commissioners are seeking a court
order to permanently terminate the BioLab plant, and a petition to
shut down BioLab has garnered over 10,000 signatures.
Previous BioLab fires in 2004, 2015, 2016 and 2020 led to
evacuations, injuries, voluntary evacuations and the shutdown of
Interstate 20, respectively.
Rockdale County Commissioner Sherri Washington discussed the
motivations behind the lawsuit at a press conference on Oct. 21.
"[BioLab's] risk to this community far outweighs any benefit that
we could possibly glean from their operation in this county,"
Washington said. "For three weeks, I have listened to the numerous
physical, mental and emotional tolls that this company's negligence
has caused our residents, and we want them gone."
A few days after the fire, the wind pushed the chemical smoke
toward Emory University's Oxford campus, causing classes to go
remote. Isabel Slavens (26Ox) said she smelled a chlorine smell
across campus.
"It smelled not unlike a hotel pool, indoor pool, where it was very
heavily chlorinated," Slavens said. "But it also was kind of dusty
at the same time, the ash. It wasn't to the point where it was
difficult to breathe or anything, but I did wear a disposable mask
while I was walking around outside of campus."
The chemical plume persisted for several days, causing low
visibility on Interstate 20 and leaving a chlorinated smell in the
area nearby. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, winds
carried smoke into the southeastern metro areas of Atlanta,
resulting in hazy skies and a chlorine odor.
In an Oct. 2 email, Emory Communications informed Emory and Oxford
students about the possibility of the chemical smoke drifting into
Emory's campuses as it spread across metro Atlanta.
"Due to wind and changes in weather patterns, communities across
metro Atlanta -- including Emory's campuses -- may see smoke and
smell an odor over the next several days because of the Conyers
BioLab fire," the email read.
A lab conducted by Georgia Institute of Technology Atmospheric
Chemistry Professor Greg Huey measured abnormal levels of chlorine,
bromine and other unknown chemicals present in the air. Emory
Environment Science Research Professor Eri Saikawa, a colleague of
Huey, commented on the implications of these lab results.
"The problem with this kind of fire is that we don't know what was
really burnt, and so we have no clue what we were exposed to,"
Saikawa said.
Oxford Climate Reality Project co-President Tula Larsen (25Ox) said
she is concerned about the chemical fumes' effects on Emory's
campuses.
"The existence of the BioLab is a huge environmental threat to not
only the county but the surrounding community, like Emory and
Oxford," Larsen said. "In terms of an environmental perspective . .
. it's important to terminate the facility."
Oxford College Student Government Association Health and Wellness
Chair Luccas Perez (25Ox) said that, while he agrees with the
county's decision to file the lawsuit, he is concerned about the
possible economic effects a closure would create.
BioLab was the largest taxpayer in Rockdale County and employed 484
workers -- making the pool and spa chemical facility Rockdale
County's eighth-largest employer.
"Closing it down is reasonable, replacing it with something else .
. . I don't know what, but something to make up for the loss in
jobs and economic loss in revenue," Perez said. [GN]
BLOCKCHAIN INDUSTRIES: Case Management Conference Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BRANNON WHITE, v.
BLOCKCHAIN INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. Case No. 3:21-cv-00242-W-DEB
(S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered an order
setting:
-- early neutral evaluation conference;
-- rule 26 compliance; and
-- case management conference.
In the event the case does not settle during the ENE, the Court
will hold a Case Management Conference ("CMC") pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 16(b) immediately following the conclusion of the ENE.
The following are mandatory guidelines for the parties preparing
for the ENE and CMC. Absent express permission obtained from this
Court, counsel must timely comply with the dates and deadlines
herein
1. Review of Chambers Rules:
Counsel must refer to the Civil Local Rules, the
undersigned's
Chambers Rules for Civil Cases, as well as the Chambers Rules
of
the assigned District Judge, which are accessible via the
Court's website at www.casd.uscourts.gov.
2. Purpose of the ENE:
The purpose of the ENE is to permit an informal discussion
between the attorneys, parties, and the Magistrate Judge of
every aspect of the lawsuit in an effort to achieve an early
resolution of the case.
3. Full Settlement Authority Is Required: Pursuant to Local Rule
16.1.c.1, all parties, party representatives, including
claims
adjusters for insured parties, and the principal attorney(s)
responsible for the litigation must participate in the ENE
4. Case Management Conference: If the case does not settle
during
the ENE the Court will immediately proceed with the Case
Management Conference ("CMC").
Blockchain Industries is an investment and advisory firm focused on
distributed ledger technology and digital assets.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tt49mK at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLUE APRON: Class Cert. Bid in Mitchell Continued to Feb. 4, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mitchell v. Blue Apron,
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-05131 (N.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 6, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the parties' stipulation to continue the class
certification schedule:
-- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Feb. 4, 2025
-- Defendant's class certification opposition: Feb. 25,
2025
-- Plaintiffs' class certification reply: March 11,
2025
-- Class certification hearing: April 1,
2025
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Blue Apron operates as an e-commerce business that delivers fresh
ingredients and recipes to make meals for homes.[CC]
BLUEPRINT MEDICINES: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blueprint Medicines Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 70020cxReport
for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Johnson class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On June 7, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, with the caption Johnson v. Blueprint Medicines
Corporation, Case No. 2024-0625.
Plaintiff claims in the complaint that a "Proxy Access" provision
in the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, effective November
30, 2022, is invalid under Delaware law because it allegedly usurps
the right of stockholders to select the members of the board of
directors, and plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating that
provision, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 7, 2024, the lawsuit was consolidated with twelve other
lawsuits against companies with similar bylaw provisions under the
caption In re Irrevocable Resignation Bylaw Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 2024-0538-JTL.
On October 11, 2024, the Company, together with the other companies
in the consolidated action, filed an opening brief in support of a
motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Company does not believe the outcome of this matter will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations,
or liquidity.
Headquartered in Massachusetts, Blueprint Medicines Corporation is
a precision therapy company that develops medicines for cancers and
blood disorders. [BN]
BRAKE PARTS: Saucedo Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Saucedo, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. BRAKE PARTS INC LLC, an
unknown business entity; BRAKE PARTS LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; FIRST BRANDS GROUP LLC, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV-24-007286
(Cal. Super. Ct., Stanislaus Cty., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought
against the Defendants to recover certain wages for overtime
compensation in violation of California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
thereon alleges, that Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice
of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved,
inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime
wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in
violation of California law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California,
County of Stanislaus.
BRAKE PARTS LLC was and is an employer whose employees are engaged
throughout the State of California, including the County of
Stanislaus.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Phone: (818) 265-1020
Fax: (818) 265-1021
Email: aa@calljustice.com
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Cyber Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker 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 cyber securities class suit
in the Middle District of Florida.
In fiscal 2018, the Company discovered malware at certain Chili's
restaurants that may have resulted in unauthorized access or
acquisition of customer payment card data.
It settled all claims from payment card companies related to this
incident and do not expect material claims from payment card
companies in the future.
In connection with this event, the Company was also named as a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the
"Litigation") relating to this incident. In the Litigation,
plaintiffs assert various claims at the Company's Chili's
restaurants involving customer payment card information and seek
monetary damages in excess of $5.0 million, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorney's fees and costs.
On April 29, 2024, the US Supreme Court denied itsr petition for
certiorari concerning review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision to
uphold plaintiff's damages calculation.
Accordingly, the parties continue to await the trial court's ruling
on the issue of predominance as it relates to class certification
in light of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling on this issue.
The Company believes it has defenses and intend to continue
defending the Litigation.
Brinker International Inc. owns and operates over one hundred
restaurants in California, including such chains as Chili's Grill
and Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy.
BUCKLE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Buckle Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-04028-JWB-DLM (D.
Minn., Oct. 25, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's
Website (www.buckle.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website")
is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim
under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind.
The Defendant offers clothing, shoes, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, tops, tees, sweaters, jumpsuits,
rompers, sandals, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
CASA MARZAM: Face Price Fixing Class Action Suit in Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------
Mexico's Federal Economic Competition Commission (Cofece) has filed
its first-ever class action, seeking damages of approximately 100
million euros (US$109 million) from three major pharmaceutical
distributors and an industry association. This landmark case aims
to address alleged anticompetitive practices that affected medicine
availability and pricing across the country, underscoring Cofece's
expanded commitment to protecting consumer interests in Mexico's
largely untested private litigation landscape.
According to a statement from Cofece, the class action targets Casa
Marzam, Casa Saba, Farmacos Nacionales, and the Association of
Pharmaceutical Products Distributors of Mexico. The case accuses
the companies of orchestrating restrictive agreements over a
ten-year period, during which they allegedly limited medicine
distribution on certain days, restricted quantities supplied to
pharmacies, and manipulated pricing practices to curb discounts.
Cofece contends that these actions led to artificial price
inflation and limited access to essential medications, especially
impacting lower-income households who spend a larger portion of
their income on healthcare. Cofece estimates that these practices
have cost Mexican consumers more than 2 billion pesos in inflated
medicine prices.
In 2021, Cofece imposed a record fine of 903.4 million pesos on
several pharmaceutical companies and 21 individuals involved,
marking the maximum allowable penalty under the current legal
framework. Additionally, ten executives linked to the agreements
were disqualified from their roles. This class action goes further
by seeking to secure an additional 2.316 billion pesos in
compensation, which, if awarded, would be allocated to the
IMSS-Bienestar program to improve healthcare services in
underserved areas. The proposed allocation aims to benefit those
most affected by these alleged anticompetitive practices.
"Through this historic class action, we seek not only justice for
those harmed by inflated medicine prices but also accountability
for the practices that have hindered the healthcare sector,"
Cofece's statement noted. "This legal action highlights our
commitment to fully exercising our authority in competition law,
ensuring that the damages caused by such violations are repaired."
The case is also a significant milestone in Mexican competition
law, as it marks the first use of collective action within this
framework. Under collective action, Cofece assumes the role of
representing affected individuals or groups, covering the legal
costs associated with pursuing compensation. This approach allows
those impacted by anticompetitive behavior to seek redress without
bearing the expense of lengthy litigation. [GN]
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, E.S. Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.; and CHANGE HEALTHCARE LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-04031-DWF-DJF (D. Minn., Oct. 25,
2024) seeks to redress the Defendants' willful and reckless
violations of their privacy rights.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants
flagrantly disregarded the Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
privacy and property rights by intentionally, willfully and
recklessly failing to take the necessary precautions required to
safeguard and protect Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Protected
Health Information and Personally Identifiable Information from
unauthorized disclosure.
The Plaintiff's and the Class Members' PHI and PII was improperly
handled, inadequately protected, and not kept in accordance with
basic security protocols. Defendants' obtaining of the information
and sharing of same also represent a flagrant disregard of
Plaintiff's and the Class Members' rights, both as to privacy and
property, says the suit.
Change Healthcare, Inc. provides healthcare technology solutions.
The Company offers analytical, connectivity, communication,
payment, consumer engagement, and workflow optimization software
solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
erittergordon@locklaw.com
- and -
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
MCSHUNE & BRADY, LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 6411
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
CHICAGO, IL: O'Donnell Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN O'DONNELL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Ryan O'Donnell, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. City of Chicago, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-01192, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
The Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the Defendants
for alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause and
Illinois constitutional and state law by disposing impounded
vehicles.
On May 1, 2023, Defendant City of Chicago filed motions to dismiss
the case for failure to state a claim and for lack of
jurisdiction.
On Apr. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a
sur-reply.
On May 20, 2024, Defendant URT United Road Towing, Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
On Sept. 28, 2024, Judge Andrea R. Wood granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied City of
Chicago's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The Plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a sur-reply was denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Ryan O'Donnell, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
City of Chicago, et al., Case No. 24-2946, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on October 28,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RYAN O'DONNELL, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Benjamin Rodgers Swetland, Esq.
Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
MYRON CHERRY & ASSOCIATES
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-2100
Email: bswetland@cherry-law.com
jzolna@cherry-law.com
Defendants-Appellees CITY OF CHICAGO, et al. are represented by:
Jennifer Zlotow, Esq.
CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF LAW
30 N. LaSalle Street, 12t Fl., Suite 1230
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 744-0740
Email: jennifer.zlotow@cityofchicago.org
- and -
Aaron Talen Dozeman, Esq.
John Vincent Casey, Esq.
CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF LAW
2 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 520
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 744-9018
(312) 742-0307
Email: aaron.dozeman1@cityofchicago.org
john.casey@cityofchicago.org
- and -
Bernard Francis Crotty, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD F. CROTTY, PC
20015 S. LaGrange Rd., Ste. 1102
Frankfort, IL 60423
Telephone: (708) 390-2803
Email: bc@crottylawoffice.com
- and -
Ross William Bartolotta, Esq.
Christian Allen Sullivan, Esq.
SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL
2525 Cabot Drive, Suite 204
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (630) 799-6900
Email: rbartolo@smbtrials.com
csulliva@smbtrials.com
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE: CMG) resulting
from allegations that Chipotle may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Chipotle securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30587 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On October 29, 2024, after the market closed,
Marketwatch published an article entitled "Chipotle's new CEO
maintains focus on faster service as sales fall short." It stated
that "[s]hares of Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. fell after hours on
Tuesday, after the Mexican fast-casual chain reported
weaker-than-expected quarterly sales trends and pointed to an
uptick in costs from trying to offer more consistent portion
sizes."
On this news, Chipotle stock fell 7.8% on October 30, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CHUBBY SNACKS: Faces Gelin Suit Over Deceptive Sandwich Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
IFONIA GELIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHUBBY SNACKS, INC., a Delaware company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-07416 (N.D. Cal., October 24, 2024)
seeks relief for Defendant's violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising
Law, and for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
According to the complaint, described as "a premium yet practical
choice for nostalgic, health-conscious consumers on the go," Chubby
Snacks are frozen, crustless sandwiches featuring organic wheat
bread filled with peanut butter or almond butter and specialty
jams. The product labels use color palates and imagery that appeals
to children while also underscoring the purported "low sugar" and
"health" benefits of the products to target health-conscious
consumers.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant's conduct of falsely
marketing, advertising, labeling, and selling Chubby Products as a
healthy snack and as having fewer grams of sugar than the products
actually contain constitutes unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent
conduct; is likely to deceive members of the public; and is
unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and/or substantially injurious
to consumers, because, among other things, it misrepresents the
characteristics of goods and services.
During the Class Period, Plaintiff Gelin purchased Peanut Butter,
Strawberry and Grape Jelly Products at a grocery store such as
Whole Foods in or around Napa California.
Chubby Snacks Inc. operates as an online marketplace that offers a
variety of jelly sandwiches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP
31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 212-5124
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
COMERICA BANK: Conduent's Request to Seal Documents Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, a
foreign corporation; CONDUENT BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, a foreign
limited liability corporation, and CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL
SOLUTIONS, INC., a foreign corporation, Case No.
2:24-cv-01206-DJC-DMC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta
entered an order granting Conduent's request to seal documents.
-- The Clerk is directed to file the unredacted document Bates-
stamped as Conduent_Sparkman_II_000310- 312 under seal.
-- The Court further grants Conduent's Request to file the
Plaintiff's unredacted motion for class Certification under
seal.
Comerica is an American financial services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IWOUsy at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONTAINER STORE: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Container Store Group 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 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a labor class suit in Santa
Clara Superior Court.
The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
filed on February 10, 2020 in Santa Clara Superior Court by Rashon
Hayes ("Plaintiff"), a former, hourly-paid employee of TCS who was
employed from April 2019 to June 2019.
The First Amended Complaint was filed on August 3, 2020 and alleged
eleven causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid meal
period premiums, (3) unpaid rest period premiums, (4) unpaid
minimum wages, (5) final wages not timely paid, (6) wages not
timely paid during employment, (7) non-compliant wage statements,
(8) failure to keep requisite payroll records, (9) unreimbursed
business expenses, (10) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200, and (11) violation of the
California Private Attorneys General Act.
The parties engaged in mediation on February 21, 2024 and reached a
preliminary, confidential settlement.
Based on information currently available, other than the above
referenced matter, the Company does not believe that its pending
legal matters, either on an individual basis or in the aggregate,
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated
financial statements as a whole.
However, litigation and other legal matters involve an element of
uncertainty.
The Container Store Group, Inc. is a holding company, of which a
majority stake was purchased by Leonard Green and Pa that operates
a specialty retail chain company that operates "The Container
Store," which offers storage and organization products, and custom
closets.
CORMEDIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
CorMedix 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 30, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On October 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey consolidated into In re CorMedix Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv 14020-JXN-CLW, two putative
class action lawsuits filed on or about July 22, 2021 and September
13, 2021, respectively, and appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiff, a purported stockholder of the Company.
The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on December 14, 2021, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, along with Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
On October 10, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the original complaints in
In re CorMedix Securities Litigation.
On March 21, 2024, the court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
without prejudice and granted lead plaintiff leave to amend the
complaint.
On April 22, 2024, lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint that superseded the second amended
consolidated complaint. In the third amended complaint, the lead
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired CorMedix securities between October 16, 2019
and August 8, 2022, inclusive.
The third amended complaint names as defendants the Company and six
(6) current and former officers of CorMedix, namely Khoso Baluch,
Robert Cook, Matthew David, Phoebe Mounts, John L. Armstrong, and
Joseph Todisco (the "Officer Defendants" and collectively with
CorMedix, the "CorMedix Defendants").
The third amended complaint alleges that the CorMedix Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5) and
that the Officer Defendants violated Section 20(a).
In general, the purported bases for these claims are allegedly
false and misleading statements and omissions related to the NDA
submissions to the FDA for DefenCath, subsequent complete response
letters, as well as communications from the FDA related and
directed to the Company's contract manufacturing organization and
heparin supplier.
The Company intends to vigorously contest such claims.
The Company filed its motion to dismiss the third amended complaint
on June 6, 2024, and received from Plaintiffs their opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss on July 22, 2024. The Company filed
its response on August 21, 2024.
CorMedix Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing
and commercializing therapeutic products with its principal
executive office is located in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.
CREDITORS RELIEF: Bid to Dismiss Cardenas Class Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Erica Cardenas, et al., v.
Creditors Relief, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04214-MCA-JBC (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order denying Defendant's
motion to dismiss, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(f).
While the Court concludes that Defendant's motion to strike and or
dismiss is premature, the Defendant may renew these arguments in
opposition to any motion for class certification that may
eventually be filed.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss is a facial attack because it
asserts Plaintiff lacks Article III standing, and thus the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter
By alleging invasion of privacy based on a series of unsolicited
messages from Defendant, the Plaintiff has established standing.
The Defendant moves, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiff's
class allegations because she does not have standing to bring a
claim on behalf of the putative class.
The Court disagrees. Like in Abante Rooter & Plumbing, Inc. v.
Creditors Relief, LLC, "this motion to strike is simply another
iteration of the standing argument the Court has already rejected.
Having found that plaintiffs, at this juncture, alleged injuries in
fact sufficient to confer standing to bring their TCPA claims, they
also have standing to represent the putative classes."
Ms. Cardenas alleges that Creditors Relief promotes its business by
sending text messages to consumers without their consent, including
to those who have their phone numbers registered on the National Do
Not Call Registry.
Ms. Cardenas alleges that on several instances throughout January
2024, Creditors Relief sent unsolicited text messages to her
personal cellphone even though her number has been registered with
the DNC since Nov. 2023.
Creditors is a debt relief services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pf0z5D at no extra
charge.[CC]
CROSS RIVER: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Berger Montague PC informs investors that the firm has filed a
securities class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Cross River Bank ("CRB"), Bank
Partner to Sunlight Financial Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Spartan
Acquisition Corp. II ("Sunlight") (NYSE: SUNL; OTC: SUNLQ; NYSE:
SPRQ). The action is captioned Wax v. Cross River Bank, Case No.
2:24-cv-09510 and is brought on behalf of investors who purchased
Sunlight securities between January 25, 2021 and October 31, 2023,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Sunlight
securities during the Class Period may, no later than December 2,
2024 seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in
this litigation, please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz
ataabramowitz@bm.netor (215) 875-3015, Peter Hamner
atphamner@bm.netor (215) 875-3048, or
visit:https://investigations.bergermontague.com/sunlight-financial/
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, CRB engaged in
a scheme to extend loans to disreputable solar contractors of
dubious credit quality and facilitate Sunlight's accumulation of a
large loan pools of fixed-rate loans on CRB's balance sheet for
which Sunlight retained the risk of loss. These loans contained
enormous levels of risk of default and interest rate risk for
Sunlight, but Sunlight lacked the necessary capital to tolerate a
default or significant rise in interest rates.
Neither Sunlight nor CRB disclosed to Plaintiff and the Class the
magnitude of that risk or, when interest rates increased, the
extent of Sunlight's mounting off-balance sheet liabilities (which
were being warehoused on the balance sheet of Sunlight's Bank
Partner, CRB).
CRB's repeated extensions of credit and agreement to help Sunlight
conceal its true indebtedness from investors by having it recorded
in CRB's books, coupled with Sunlight's false statements about its
true loan exposure, kept Sunlight's true financial distress a
secret from investors, which kept the price of Sunlight's shares
artificially inflated during the Class Period.
A series of disclosures beginning on September 28, 2022 revealed
the true state of Sunlight's financial picture. For instance, on
that date, Sunlight announced that it was taking a non-cash advance
receivable impairment of $30 to $33 million stemming from liquidity
issues by one installer. Sunlight's stock price plummeted 57%, or
$1.44 per share, on the news, falling from a closing price of $2.52
per share on September 28, 2022 to a close of $1.08 per share on
September 29, 2022.
The truth continued to be incrementally revealed to investors until
October 31, 2023, when investors fully learned of CRB's fraudulent
scheme. On that date, Sunlight announced it had filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy with a pre-packaged plan whereby CRB would provide
exit financing in return for 12.5% of the New Equity in the
reorganized company. Under the plan, the interests of Plaintiff and
the other common stockholders of Sunlight were extinguished. On
this news, shares of Sunlight fell $0.13 per share, or 34%, from a
closing price of $0.38 per share on October 30, 2023 to a close of
$0.25 per share on October 31, 2023.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class
member.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco and Chicago, has been a
pioneer in securities class action litigation since its founding in
1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and institutional
investors for over five decades and serves as lead counsel in
courts throughout the United States.
Contacts:
Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
- and -
Peter Hamner
Berger Montague PC
(215) 875-3048
phamner@bm.net [GN]
CVS HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in OPI Suit Due Sept. 30, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OSTERHAUS PHARMACY INC.,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01359-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered Rule 16(b) and Rule
23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as
follows:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Sept. 30, 2025
for class certification
Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Oct. 30, 2025
Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: Nov. 14, 2025
Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the
Court after
briefing
Complete.
The court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion
for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the
court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek
class certification.
The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be
changed only by order of the court, not by agreement of the
parties. The court will alter these dates only upon good cause
shown. The failure to complete discovery within the time allowed
will not ordinarily constitute good cause.
CVS is an American healthcare company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f2bM5F at no extra
charge.[CC]
CVS HEALTH: HIV-Positive Individuals Seek to Certify Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo!Finance reports that CVS was aware of the threat its
prescription drug mail-order program posed to individuals living
with HIV yet still chose to implement the program in order to
increase its revenue, according to a legal brief to certify the
case as a class action filed in federal court on Friday, November
1.
According to evidence submitted with the brief, "Defendants admit
that the Program was designed to limit member choice and increase
revenue by up to $69 million by preventing 'leakage' of HIV/AIDS
Medications, the euphemism Defendants used to describe their loss
of revenue . . . when [prior to the mail-order program] a member
could purchase HIV/AIDS Medications from non-CVS pharmacies."
The lawsuit alleges that the CVS drug program is discriminatory and
cuts off access to knowledgeable pharmacists and other critical
benefits and services essential for people living with HIV.
CVS Health Corporation, one of the largest healthcare companies in
the world, owns pharmacies throughout the U.S., but also operates
as a "pharmacy benefit manager," which coordinates pharmacy
benefits for people like the John Doe plaintiffs who are (or were)
enrolled in employer-provided health plans.
Most other major health insurance companies in the U.S. now allow
members to opt out of mail-order-only delivery of HIV medications
as a result of numerous settlements achieved by attorneys for
Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLP.
In April 2024, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California ruled that the four HIV-positive "John Doe"
plaintiffs adequately alleged CVS acted intentionally under the
"deliberate indifference" standard because it knew the Program
could harm people with HIV.
According to the legal brief filed, around the time the mail-order
program was adopted, CVS prepared an internal PowerPoint concerning
litigation (brought by Consumer Watchdog and Whatley Kallas, LLP)
over the health impacts of other health care companies' HIV
mail-order programs and resulting media coverage.
Plaintiffs contend that CVS was aware that providing HIV
medications only by mail leads to missed doses and loss of
essential services, which cause significant health risk to people
living HIV. According to the legal brief filed:
Yet another internal PowerPoint reported that "[s]pecialty
satisfaction scores are lagging for members who fill HIV
medications at CVS Specialty," and then went on to summarize many
of the same member health concerns raised in this lawsuit: poor
"knowledge of HIV therapies among [r]etail pharmacy staff,"
shipping delays, delivery errors, and concomitant stress and
frustration among members. Defendants were also aware that plan
sponsors involved in certain industries, including the "airline
industry, entertainment, [and] retail" may have particular concerns
over the Program due to delivery problems when members are
traveling for work. In fact, John Doe Seven, a flight attendant,
has experienced these precise problems, resulting in missed doses
and increased health risk. [GN]
DANZAS CORP: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Williams
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Danzas
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-01286-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Danzas is an international trade and development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HsCaNg at no extra
charge.[CC]
DC PORTFOLIO: Class Settlement in Burrows Suit Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as William Burrows, Jr., on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated, v. DC Portfolio
Services, LLC, Abrahamsen Ginden, LLC, and Joshua Gindin, Case No.
2:22-cv-00260-SDA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- granting final approval to the Class Action Settlement,
-- granting Class Counsel leave to seek an award of attorneys'
fees
and costs at a later date, and
-- entering the proposed form of Order.
The Settlement Agreement, as amended on Nov. 8, 2023, defines the
Settlement Class as:
"The 52 natural persons identified by Defendants, against whom,
on
or after Nov. 22, 2020, Abrahamsen Gindin filed a lawsuit in
New
Jersey Superior Court on behalf of DC Portfolio Services where
the
complaint filed sought to collect an alleged debt incurred for
personal, family or household purposes which was described as
arising from a "personal loan" when the alleged debt arose from
a
different type of consumer financial obligation."
Each Settlement Class Member was to receive a proportionate share
of $3,250.00. or $62.50 per person based on the initial class
size.
Since the Settlement Administrator successfully mailed the Class
Notice to 50 of the 52 members and received no requests for
exclusions, each of the 50 remaining members will each receive a
check for $65.00.
Subject to Court approval, the Defendants will pay a total award of
$2,750.00 to Plaintiff (not including his class member check),
comprised of a $1,750.00 in recognition of his efforts on behalf of
the Settlement Class Members and $1,000 to settle his individual
claims against all parties. The Service Award will be paid by
Defendants.
On Nov. 22, 2021, the Plaintiff Burrows, Jr., filed his Class
Action Complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey.
On Feb. 16, 2023, the Parties jointly filed a status letter
informing the court that they had reached a preliminary class
action settlement and were working on drafting a comprehensive
written settlement agreement.
The Parties continued to negotiate the terms of the Settlement and
entered into the Class Action Settlement Agreement on June 7,
2023.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RbWIae at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. Ricci, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Telephone: (973) 218-2627
Facsimile: (973) 206-6955
E-mail: dricci@NJConsumerLawyer.com
DIRECT DIGITAL: Faces Securities Suit Over Misleading Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 15, 2024, that on May 23, 2024, an
alleged stockholder, purportedly on behalf of the persons or
entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of
the company between April 2023 and March 2024, filed a putative
class action against the company, certain of its officers and
directors, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of federal
securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures
made by the company in its public filings.
This has been consolidated with another alleged stockholder filed
on July 9, 2024.
Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. is an end-to-end, full-service
advertising and marketing platform which provides advertisers of
all sizes a programmatic advertising platform that automates the
sale of ad inventory between advertisers and agencies leveraging
proprietary technology.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Fischer Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN E. FISCHER III, JOHN
DOES 1-10,000, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, US CAPITOL POLICE
DEPARTMENT, US CAPITOL POLICE BOARD, MURIEL BOWSER, NANCY PELOSI,
STEVEN SUND, YOGANANDA PITTMAN, ERIC WALDOW, THOMAS LOYD, JOHN DOE
USCP OFFICERS 1-50, ROBERT GLOVER, DANIEL THAU, JAMES CRISMAN, JOHN
DOE D.C. MPD OFFICERS 1-50, individually and in their official
capacities, Case No. 1:24-cv-00044-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) or alternatively
Rule 23(c)(4) consisting of:
"All persons who were on the west terrace, west plaza, west
steps
and/or west lawn of the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021
who
were struck by weapons or exposed to chemicals launched or
thrown
or weapons used by law enforcement personnel in violation of
the
persons' rights under the United States Constitution and
amendments thereto"; and
-- appointing Alan E. Fischer III and the undersigned attorney as
class counsel.
This case is about the United States Capitol Police and the
Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia indiscriminately
shooting munitions into a crowd of thousands of people at the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The people hit by the
munitions were injured. The police also used billy clubs, including
strikes to the head, pepper spray and other means of excessive
force. M
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bbRadQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen Austin Carr, Esq.
AUSTIN CARR, P.A.
6314 Engram Road
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
E-mail: austin@austincarrlaw.com
Telephone: (786) 282-2882
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Plaintiffs Seeks More Time to File Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN E. FISCHER III, JOHN
DOES 1-10,000, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, US CAPITOL POLICE
DEPARTMENT, US CAPITOL POLICE BOARD, MURIEL BOWSER, NANCY PELOSI,
STEVEN SUND, YOGANANDA PITTMAN, ERIC WALDOW, THOMAS LOYD, JOHN DOE
USCP OFFICERS 1-50, ROBERT GLOVER, DANIEL THAU, JAMES CRISMAN, JOHN
DOE D.C. MPD OFFICERS 1-50, individually and in their official
capacity, Case No. 1:24-cv-00044-CRC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to file
his Rule 23 motion for class certification.
The case is about the United States Capitol Police and the
Metropolitan Police of the District of Columbia indiscriminately
shooting munitions into a crowd of thousands of people at the
United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, without warning.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4txN9C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen Austin Carr, Esq.
AUSTIN CARR, P.A.
6314 Engram Road
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169
E-mail: austin@austincarrlaw.com
Telephone: (786) 282-2882
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Extend Deadline to File Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MORGAN, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order, under Rules 6(b)(1)(A)
and 16(b)(4), to modify the scheduling order with respect to the
briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' third renewed motion for class
certification.
The District seeks to modify the deadlines for its opposition and
Plaintiffs' reply.
The District seeks to extend the deadline for its opposition from
Nov. 1, 2024, to Nov. 22, 2024, and for Plaintiffs' reply from Nov.
22, 2024, to Dec. 16, 2024.
The Parties have conferred as required by Local Rule 7(m), and
Plaintiffs consent to this modification.
This is the District's first motion to modify the current
scheduling order. The proposed modification will not affect any
other deadlines in the scheduling order.
Good cause exists to modify the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs'
third renewed motion for class certification in order to allow
counsel for the District to review the allegations of several new
Plaintiffs and engage in discovery, including defending two Rule
30(b)(6) depositions this week.
The proposed extension will also allow counsel for the District to
manage pressing deadlines in several other cases, including other
deadlines for dispositive motions briefing.
Plaintiffs consent to the requested relief.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(a), this Motion includes all supporting
points of law and authority. A proposed order follows, as required
by Local Rule 7(c).
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mEcDDe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew R. Blecher, Esq.
Honey Morton, Esq.
Adam Daniel, Esq.
Gregory Ketcham-Colwill, Esq.
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION
400 6th Street, N.W. Suite 10100
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 735-7572
E-mail: gregory.ketcham-colwill@dc.gov
DRIVER PROVIDER: Salazar Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
KELLI SALAZAR, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Kelli Salazar, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Driver Provider Phoenix, LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05760-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Arizona wage statutes.
On Aug. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an application for award of
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval
of collective and class action settlement.
On Sept. 23, 2024, a final fairness hearing was held, as well as a
discussion regarding the Motion for Final Approval of Collective
and Class Action Settlement. Judge Susan M. Brnovich dismissed the
case with prejudice as to the Settlement Class Members, and
directed the Clerk to enter final judgment and to terminate the
case. The Plaintiffs' application for award of attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses will be ruled on by separate order, the court
added.
The appellate case is captioned Salazar, et al. v. Driver Provider
Phoenix, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-6575, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire is due on November 4,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on November 5,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 5, 2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 14, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 13,
2025. [BN]
ELANCO ANIMAL: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Elanco Animal Health
Incorporated ("Elanco" or the "Company") (NYSE: ELAN) and reminds
investors of the December 6, 2024 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that (i) Zenrelia
was less safe than the Company had led investors to believe; (ii)
Elanco was unlikely to meet its own previously issued timeline for
the U.S. approval and commercial launch of both Zenrelia and
Credelio Quattro; (iii) accordingly, the Company's business and/or
financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
On June 27, 2024, the Company issued a press release providing an
"innovation update" on Zenrelia and Credelio Quattro and their U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approval timelines. The press
release revealed that Elanco expected the U.S. label for Zenrelia
to include a boxed warning on safety "based on the outcome of a
trial with unvaccinated dogs dosed at 3x the label dose," which the
Company believed would "slow the product adoption curve in the
U.S." and initially limit the number of expected treatment
days-i.e., the number of days Zenrelia can safely be administered
to vaccinated dogs-by approximately 25%. Further, Elanco stated
that it was now expecting Zenrelia to receive FDA approval in the
third quarter of 2024, leading to a potential commercial launch in
the fourth quarter of 2024, and that Credelio Quattro is expected
to receive FDA approval in the fourth quarter of 2024.
On this news, Elanco's stock price fell $3.70 per share, or 20.59%,
to close at $14.27 per share on June 27, 2024.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Elanco's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
To learn more about the Elanco Animal Health class action, go to
www.faruqilaw.com/ELAN or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson
directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
ELI LILLY & CO: Actos Class Suit Oral Argument Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the oral argument in
Actos class suit is ongoing.
The Company, along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. and Takeda
affiliates (collectively, Takeda), are named in a third party payer
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Plaintiffs claim that they and similarly situated class members are
entitled to recover money paid for or to reimburse Actos
prescriptions because of alleged concealment of bladder cancer
risk.
The Company's agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify it against its losses and expenses with respect to U.S.
litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos
and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the Company and Takeda's petition for permission to appeal
the class certification order, the appeal has been fully briefed,
and oral argument is scheduled for November 2024.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company -- https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the antitrust class suit in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York.
In July 2021, the Company, along with Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC
(Sanofi), Novo Nordisk Inc. (Novo Nordisk), and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZeneca), were named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York by Mosaic Health, Inc. alleging
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims related to the defendants'
340B distribution programs.
The Company, with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and AstraZeneca, filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was granted in September 2022.
In January 2024, the court dismissed the case.
Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
This matter is ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company -- https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
ELI LILLY & CO: Continues to Defend Insulin Pricing Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELI LILLY & Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from multidistrict insulin pricing class suit.
The Company, along with Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, and, in some matters,
certain pharmacy benefit managers, have been named in numerous
lawsuits, including putative class actions, by states and state
attorneys general, counties, municipalities, third-party payers,
consumers, and other parties related to the pricing of insulin and
certain other products and rebates paid by manufacturers to
pharmacy benefit managers.
These lawsuits assert various theories, including consumer
protection, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, false
advertising, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, federal and state
RICO, antitrust, and unfair competition claims.
These lawsuits have been brought in various state and federal
courts since 2017 and are at various stages in the litigation
process.
The cases pending in federal court have generally been coordinated
and/or consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a federal
multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
The defendants have filed motions to dismiss an initial set of
State attorney general and self-funded payer complaints, which are
awaiting the Court's decision.
In May 2023, the Company reached a settlement in the consumer class
action.
In January 2024, the Multi-District Litigation court denied the
consumer class plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Company and the consumer class plaintiffs subsequently
terminated our settlement agreement and stipulated that the denial
of class certification applies to Lilly.
These matters are ongoing.
Eli Lilly and Company -- https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
ELON MUSK: Canvassers Sue Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Elon Musk's America PAC and several other defendants, including the
reelection campaign for Representative Michelle Steel, a Republican
from California, are accused of violating California labor law in a
class action filed in Orange County on October 30, according to
court documents obtained by WIRED.
The named plaintiffs, Tamiko Anderson and Patricia Kelly, were
canvassers for Steel in October of this year, according to the
suit, which alleges that they weren't paid agreed-upon wages.
America PAC is named because it provided campaigning services for
Steel.
The plaintiffs are also suing over an alleged failure to reimburse
business expenses and for allegedly being provided inaccurate wage
statements. The suit seeks class certification for "All current and
former non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of
California who were employed as canvassers and canvassed for
Michelle Steel at any time from October 30, 2023, through the
present."
"The Steel campaign has no knowledge of these individuals, they did
not and do not work for the Steel campaign, and the campaign will
not comment on individuals that involve a Super PAC with which we
have no involvement," a spokesperson for the Steel campaign said in
a statement.
These allegations are different from those WIRED reported, when
canvassers in Michigan said they were tricked and threatened as
part of Elon Musk and America PAC's get-out-the-vote effort for
Donald Trump. The door knockers, who worked for a subcontractor of
America PAC, were flown to Michigan, driven in the back of a
U-Haul, and told they would have to pay hotel bills unless they met
unrealistic quotas. One was surprised to find, upon arrival in
Michigan, that they were working to elect Donald Trump.
The Blair Group, a North Carolina firm that the complaint claims is
a political consultancy, and Liberty Staffing Services, a Florida
firm specializing in hiring and payroll for canvassers and other W2
employees of political campaigns, are the other named defendants.
Neither immediately responded to requests for comment. The suit
also lists unknown Johns Doe as defendants.
The plaintiffs are owed money, according to the suit.
"As with other members of the Class, Plaintiffs were guaranteed an
agreed upon wage hourly wage [sic] upon starting their employment.
However, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants failed
to pay them at the correct hourly wage, and, instead, paid them
based on the number of residences they canvassed. To date,
Plaintiffs have yet to receive the underpaid wages owed to them,"
the complaint states.
The defendants in the lawsuit also were not reimbursed for
downloading various apps on their personal devices, according to
the complaint. The plaintiffs also allege their cell phones were
used to track time worked, but that they still were not compensated
for those hours.
America PAC, into which Musk has poured more than $100 million, has
largely taken up get-out-the-vote operations in key swing states
for the Donald Trump campaign. Widespread reports depict its
operations as a mess, though -- in addition to WIRED's reporting on
its efforts in Michigan, The Guardian has reported that up to 25
percent of its door knocks may be fraudulent, and NBC has reported
that campaign operatives have concerns about "suspect data." In an
election all polls show as a toss-up, a shambolic field operation
could well mean the difference between victory and defeat.
Neither Alex Spiro, Musk's attorney, nor a spokesperson for X,
which Musk owns, immediately replied to requests for comment and
requests to be put in touch with a representative of America PAC,
which does not list contact information on its website. A
representative for The Blair Group also did not return a request
for comment. [GN]
ENOVIX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enovix Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On January 6, 2023, a purported Company stockholder filed a
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California against Enovix and certain of
our current and former officers and directors (collectively, the
"defendants").
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making material misstatements or omissions in public
statements related to its manufacturing scale-ups and testing of
new equipment.
A substantially identical complaint was filed on January 25, 2023
by another purported Company stockholder.
Following consolidation of the cases and court appointment of two
purported Company stockholder lead plaintiffs, a consolidated
complaint alleging substantially similar claims, including
allegations that the defendants made material misstatements or
omissions in public statements related to testing of new equipment,
was filed on July 7, 2023.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
on January 30, 2024.
The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 19, 2024,
which seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased and/or acquired shares
of Enovix or its predecessor entity’s common stock between June
24, 2021 and October 3, 2023.
On July 23, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the remaining claims in this action.
Enovix Corporation manufactures Lithium-ion, or Li-ion, battery
cells based in California.
ENOVIX CORP: Continues to Defend Walker Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Enovix Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 70020cxReport for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Walker class suit in the
Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
On March 8, 2023, a former employee filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Enovix in the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda. The case is captioned Kody Walker v. Enovix
Corporation, 23CV028923 (the "Walker Complaint").
The Walker Complaint alleges, among other things, on a putative
class-wide basis, that it failed to pay minimum wages, overtime and
sick time wages, failed to reimburse employees for required
expenses, failed to provide meal and rest periods and issued
inaccurate wage statement under the California Labor Code and
applicable Wage Orders.
The Walker Complaint asserts on an individual basis that Walker was
constructively discharged.
The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, statutory penalties and interest
and reasonable costs and attorney fees.
The Company had a mediation scheduled on October 30, 2024 with
plaintiff's counsel in the Walker matter.
Enovix Corporation manufactures Lithium-ion, or Li-ion, battery
cells based in California.
EQT CORP: Securities Class Suit Trial Date Not Yet Set
------------------------------------------------------
EQT Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has not yet
set trial date for the securities class suit.
On December 6, 2019, an amended putative class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania by Cambridge Retirement System, Government of Guam
Retirement Fund, Northeast Carpenters Annuity Fund, and Northeast
Carpenters Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, against EQT, and certain former executives and
current and former board members of EQT (the Securities Class
Action).
The complaint alleges that certain statements made by EQT regarding
its merger with Rice Energy Inc. in 2017 were materially false and
violated various federal securities laws. Pursuant to the
complaint, the plaintiffs seek compensatory or rescissory damages
in an unspecified amount for all damages allegedly sustained by the
class as a result of alleged negative impacts to EQT's stock price
in 2018 and 2019.
Additionally, following the filing of the Securities Class Action
complaint, several other lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania by certain
shareholders of EQT against EQT and certain former executives and
current and former board members of EQT asserting substantially the
same allegations as those raised in the Securities Class Action.
These matters are currently pending, the majority of which have
been stayed pending a ruling on dispositive motions in the
Securities Class Action.
Following the commencement of the Securities Class Action, the
parties engaged in fact and expert discovery.
In June 2024, the discovery phase of the Securities Class Action
was completed.
On June 27, 2024, the parties to the Securities Class Action
participated in a mediation (the Mediation), which did not result
in resolution.
A trial date for the Securities Class Action has not been
determined.
EQT Corporation is an American energy company engaged in
hydrocarbon exploration and pipeline transport. It is headquartered
in EQT Plaza in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties 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 the Sherman Act class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Beginning on August 31, 2023 through December 4, 2023, certain
private party plaintiffs filed several putative class actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, against Datacomp Appraisal Systems, Inc.
("Datacomp") and several owner/operators of manufactured housing
communities, including ELS (the "Datacomp Litigation"), alleging
that the community owner/operators used JLT Market Reports produced
by Datacomp to conspire to raise manufactured home lot rents in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
ELS purchased Datacomp in connection with the MHVillage/Datacomp
acquisition during the year ended December 31, 2021.
On December 15, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint captioned, In re Manufactured Home Lot Rents Antitrust
Litigation, No. 1:23-cv-6715.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and monetary damages,
including attorneys' fees.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 29, 2024.
The Company believes that the Datacomp Litigation is without merit,
and it intends to vigorously defend its interests in this matter.
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc. together with MHC Operating
Limited Partnership and its other consolidated subsidiaries is a
fully integrated owner of lifestyle-oriented properties consisting
of property operations and home sales and rental operations
primarily within manufactured home and recreational vehicle
communities and marinas.
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP announces that a shareholder filed a class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: EVLV)
securities between August 19, 2022 and October 30, 2024. Evolv is a
security technology company that utilizes AI-based screening
designed to help create safer experiences.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. (EVLV) Misled Investors Regarding
Revenue Recognition
According to the complaint, on October 25, 2024, Evolv announced
that the Company's financial statements issued between the second
quarter of 2022 and the second quarter of 2024 should not be relied
upon due to material misstatements impacting revenue recognition
and other previously reported metrics that are a function of
revenue. The Company revealed that "certain sales, including sales
to one of its largest channel partners, were subject to
extra-contractual terms and conditions" not shared with the
Company's accounting personnel "and that certain Company personnel
engaged in misconduct in connection with those transactions." The
Company also announced that it "expects to report one or more
additional material weaknesses in internal control over financial
reporting," was delaying filing its upcoming quarterly report for
the third quarter of 2024, and that it has "self-reported these
issues" to the Division of Enforcement of the SEC. On this news,
the price of Evolv stock declined roughly 40%, from $4.10 per share
on October 24, 2024, to $2.47 per share on October 25, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. Shareholders who want to
serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application
to the court by December 31, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the
case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no
action, you can remain an absent class member.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL: Bellyard Partners Suit Removed to N.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Bellyard Partners, LLC, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Falfurrias Capital Partners, LP,
Global Plasma Solutions Inc., Case No. 24CV010221 was removed from
the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia on Sept. 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-06078-JDA to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Dispute.
Falfurrias Capital Partners -- https://falfurrias.com/ -- is a
Charlotte-based private equity investment firm that acquires or
invests in lower, middle-market businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis Reich, Esq.
REICH & BINSTOCK LLP
4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1000
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: (713) 622-7271
Fax: (713) 623-8724
- and -
Michael Mills, Esq.
THE MILLS LAW FIRM
8811 Gaylord Drive, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77024
Phone: (832) 548-4414
Fax: (832) 327-7443
- and -
Steffan Keeton, Esq.
THE KEETON FIRM LLC
100 S Commons, Ste. 102
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: (888) 412-5291
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph Matthew Englert, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS
1075 Peachtree Street N.E., Ste. 3500
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 443-5730
Email: jenglert@mcguirewoods.com
FLUX POWER: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLUX) between
November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Flux
Power investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Flux Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28783 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Flux Power's financial statements from November 10, 2022
to the present included, among other things, overstated inventory,
gross profit, current assets, and total assets; (2) Flux Power
understated cost of sales and net loss; (3) as a result, Flux Power
would need to restate its previously filed financial statements
from November 10, 2022 to the present; (4) Flux Power understated
internal control weaknesses or stated that it had adequate internal
controls when in fact it did not; and (5) as a result, defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
31, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28783 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company
at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized
by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
FLUX POWER: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLUX) between
November 11, 2022 and September 30, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 31, 2024 in the securities class action first filed by the
Firm.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Flux Power securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Flux Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28783 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than December 31, 2024. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Flux Power's
financial statements from November 10, 2022 to the present
included, among other things, overstated inventory, gross profit,
current assets, and total assets; (2) Flux Power understated cost
of sales and net loss; (3) as a result, Flux Power would need to
restate its previously filed financial statements from November 10,
2022 to the present; (4) Flux Power understated internal control
weaknesses or stated that it had adequate internal controls when in
fact it did not; and (5) as a result, defendants' statements about
its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.
To join the Flux Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28783 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
FORTIVE CORPORATION: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Cazares Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARILYN CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORTIVE CORPORATION, ADVANCED STERILIZATION
PRODUCTS SERVICES INC., and ADVANCED STERILIZATION PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01741 (W.D. Wash., October 24, 2024)
is a class action against the Defendants arising from a data breach
that has impacted at least 31,478 thousand current and former
employees, including Plaintiff.
On information and belief, the data breach occurred between January
25, 2023, and November 6, 2023--an appalling eleven months long.
Following an internal investigation in November 2023, the
Defendants learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to
employees' personally identifiable information (PII), including but
not limited to name, Social Security number, date of birth,
driver's license information, passport number, birth certificate
number, financial information, and health insurance information.
In failing to adequately protect their employees' information,
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, the Defendants violated state law and harmed
thousands of current and former employees. The Plaintiff and the
Class are victims of Defendants' negligence and inadequate cyber
security measures. Specifically, the Plaintiff and members of the
proposed Class trusted Defendants with their PII. But Defendants
betrayed that trust after failing to properly use up-to-date
security practices to prevent the data breach, says the suit.
Fortive Corporation is an American industrial technology
conglomerate company headquartered in Everett, Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zavala Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALIS JOVANY PALACIOS ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUNTAIN ENTERPRISE INC.
d/b/a WILLISTON TOWNHOUSE DINER; SPIROS DIMAS; BAFTIJE MEHMEDOSKA;
YIANNA DIMAS; and KUJTIM DIMAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07592
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Zavala was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
helper.
Fountain Enterprise Inc. d/b/a Williston Townhouse Diner operates
as a restaurant in Williston Par, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
Helen F. Dalton & Associates, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Franklin Resources, Inc. (NYSE: BEN) resulting from
allegations that Franklin Resources may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Franklin Resources securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29671 call Phillip Kim,
Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On August 21, 2024, Franklin Resources filed a
current report with the SEC. In this current report, the company
announced that it was naming a sole Chief Investment Officer at
Western Asset Management (a company subsidiary) to replace co-Chief
Investment Officer Ken Leech, who had been on a leave of absence,
effective immediately. The current report also stated that Ken
Leech had "received a Wells Notice from the Staff of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission," and that "[i]n light of Mr.
Leech's leave of absence, the Company has determined that closing
its Macro Opportunities strategy [. . .] is in clients' best
interests."
On this news, the price of Franklin Resources stock fell 12.5% on
August 21, 2024.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
GDS HOLDINGS: Class Settlement Hearing Set for February 10
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Central District of California has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of GDS Holdings Limited publicly-traded
American Depositary Shares (NASDAQ: GDS):
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ARRY BERGMANN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
GDS HOLDINGS LIMITED, WILLIAM WEI HUANG, and DANIEL NEWMAN,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED AMERICAN
DEPOSITARY SHARES ("ADS") OF GDS HOLDINGS LIMITED ("GDS") FROM JULY
13, 2020 THROUGH APRIL 3, 2023, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on February 10, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. PT before
the Honorable John A. Kronstadt, United States District Judge of
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, First Street Federal Courthouse, 350 W. First Street,
Courtroom 10C, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or by telephonic or
videoconference means as directed by the Court, for the purpose of
determining:
(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$3,000,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds
is fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up 30% of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement
of expenses of not more than $55,000, and an award of no more than
$6,000 in total, to Plaintiffs should be approved; and
(4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated June 14, 2024
("Stipulation").
If you purchased GDS ADS during the period from July 13, 2020
through April 3, 2023, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class
Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including
the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating
to your ownership interest in GDS ADS.
You may obtain copies of a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Long Notice") and the Proof of Claim
and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), by writing to or calling the
Claims Administrator at: GDS Holdings Limited Securities
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax)
(610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net/GDS. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim
electronically or postmarked no later than January 13, 2025, to the
Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in
the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received
no later than January 6, 2025. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and an award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than
January 6, 2025, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Central District of California
First Street Federal Courthouse
350 W. First Street, Suite 4311
Los Angeles, CA 90012
LEAD COUNSEL:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Alan C. Turner
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Dated: October 9, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Anticompetitive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Grabar Law Office has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
independent pharmacies, challenging the anticompetitive practices
of GoodRx Holdings, Inc. and four major pharmacy benefit managers
(PBMs): CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus
Health Solutions. The complaint alleges that these PBMs conspired
to use GoodRx's discount card system to artificially lower
reimbursement rates paid to pharmacies while collecting excessive
fees, harming both independent pharmacies and consumers.
Allegations of Price Fixing and Market Manipulation
The lawsuit contends that the defendants engaged in a price-fixing
scheme, leveraging GoodRx as a clearinghouse to share real-time
pricing data and reroute prescription transactions. This
arrangement maximized profits for the PBMs and GoodRx but led to
significant financial losses for independent pharmacies, which rely
on fair reimbursements to remain operational. The case further
highlights how these practices have accelerated the closure of
independent pharmacies, limiting consumer choice and driving up
healthcare costs.
Why It Matters
The actions of GoodRx and the PBM defendants are said to have
undermined competition in the prescription drug market, placing
additional financial strain on community pharmacies and threatening
patient access to vital healthcare services. By joining this class
action, pharmacies can seek compensation for underpaid
reimbursements, seek injunctive relief, and stand against unfair
practices that disrupt the industry.
To learn more about this case or to see if your pharmacy qualifies
to join, contact Joshua Grabar directly at jgrabar@grabarlaw.com or
call 267-507-6085. [GN]
GROUP 2029: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Williams
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Williams v. Group 2029,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01376-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Danzas is an international trade and development company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WQfLTq at no extra
charge.[CC]
HARD ROCK: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Syla Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
JETNIK SYLA, and BESNIK BERISHA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARD ROCK INTERNATIONAL
(USA), INC.; HARD ROCK HOTELS, INC.; HR HOTEL NYC LLC d/b/a HARD
ROCK HOTEL NEW YORK; NYY STEAK LLC; NYY STEAK MANHATTAN, LLC; and
KLAUBER PINTO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08247 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
30, 2024)
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as bartenders.
Hard Rock International (USA), Inc. operates bars and restaurants
located inside the Hard Rock Hotel New York, including NYY Steak
and NYY Events. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 295-5828
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
Email: akwon@bkllawyers.com
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Henkel Appeals Wage Suit Judgment to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSEA HENKEL is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' renewed motion for judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Chelsea Henkel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Highgate Hotels LP, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3-15-cv-01435, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for alleged unpaid tips
and gratuities under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.
On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted under Rule 23 but denied the motion for
conditional collective certification under the FLSA on June 22,
2021.
On June 26, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to decertify class
and a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
On June 27, 2023, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson denied the Defendants'
motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the unjust enrichment
claim. However, the motion was granted with respect to the
Plaintiff's FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act unpaid overtime
claims.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Defendants filed a renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law, and a motion to decertify class.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Wilson granted the Defendants' renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied as moot the
Defendants' motion to decertify the class. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiff failed to prove her unjust enrichment claim as a matter
of law, and thus, entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.
The appellate case is captioned Chelsea Henkel v. Highgate Hotels
LP, et al., Case No. 24-2984, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, filed on October 28, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CHELSEA HENKEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
Russell S. Moriarty, Esq.
LEVINE & BLIT
800 Westchester Avenue, Suite S-322
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (212) 967-3000
Defendants-Appellees HIGHGATE HOTELS LP, et al. are represented
by:
Donald D. Gamburg, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 995-2818
- and -
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
700 W. 47th Street, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
- and -
Christina M. Schmid, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 492-2500
HRM RESOURCES: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in McCormick Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCormick, et al., v. HRM
Resources, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00823 (D. Colo., Filed
March 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an
order regarding joint motion to amend scheduling order to extend
class certification motion deadline.
The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]
HUMANA INC: Continues to Defend Stockholders Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Humana 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 30, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a stockholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
In June 2024, a putative stockholder class action was filed against
Humana Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers under the federal securities laws in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The case, now captioned In re Humana Stockholders Litigation.,
alleges that between July 2022 and January 2024, Humana made false
or misleading statements in its periodic SEC filings and statements
to the financial markets about its financial performance and the
medical costs in its Medicare Advantage business.
In July 2024 and October 2024, parallel stockholder derivative
action captioned Silva v. Broussard and Spikes v. Broussard,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky alleging that the same claimed
acts and omissions underlying the federal securities law case also
constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by certain of its current and
former directors and executive officers.
The Company will vigorously defend against the allegations in all
cases.
Humana and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including HGBI, are a
unified health insurance provider.[BN]
HYDRAFACIAL LLC: Sued Over Malfunctioning Skin Health Machine
-------------------------------------------------------------
JASON DAVALOS, SONIA DAVALOS, SOL TAN TANNING & SPA LLC, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HYDRAFACIAL LLC dba THE HYDRAFACIAL COMPANY, and THE BEAUTY HEALTH
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08073 (S.D.N.Y., October 24,
2024) seeks monetary, equitable, and injunctive relief for
Defendants' violation of New York's General Business Law, breach of
contract, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose.
The Beauty Health Company is the parent company of HYDRAFACIAL LLC.
This class action arises from Hydrafacial's and its parent
company's misleading statements about, and sales of, their machine
known as the Syndeo. The Syndeo was sold to spas and aesthetic
salons nationwide as a treatment device that applies customizable
serums tailored to each patient's skin. The Defendants touted
Syndeo as a revolutionary device, transforming the aesthetics
industry.
The Defendants, however, hid from their customers who had purchased
the machine at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars that critical
design flaws plagued the machine causing widespread malfunctions.
Despite undisclosed efforts to fix them, Syndeo's problems
persisted. The net result is that Defendants manufactured and sold
a machine to Plaintiffs and spa owners nationwide that Defendants
have since admitted was plagued by defects and could not perform
for the purpose for which it was sold, alleges the suit.
Plaintiffs Jason Davalos and Sonia Davalos are husband and wife
residents of California, who are the two sole members of Sol Tan
Tanning & Spa LLC.
Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC provides facial aesthetic treatments to
its clients in Northern California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
THE MEHDI FIRM, P.C.
347 5th Avenue, Suite 1402
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (415) 293-8039
E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com
- and -
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 363-3333
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
- and -
Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq.
Ian D. Krupar, Esq.
THE KALFAYAN LAW FIRM, APC
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 200
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 232-0331
E-mail: ralph@rbk-law.com
ian@rbk-law.com
IBM CORP: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024,
that the Company continues to defend itself from the ERISA class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
On June 2, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that the IBM Pension Plan miscalculated certain joint and
survivor annuity pension benefits by using outdated actuarial
tables in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.
IBM, the Plan Administrator Committee, and the IBM Pension Plan are
named as defendants.
On April 4, 2024, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
On May 6, 2024, the plaintiffs appealed.
International Business offers application, technology consulting
and support.
INSPIRATO INC: Continues to Defend Koch Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspirato Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 70020cxReport for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Koch class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
On February 16, 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the District of Colorado captioned Keith Koch,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Inspirato Incorporated, Brent Handler, and R. Webster Neighbor.
The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants.
The complaint generally alleged that certain of the Company's prior
public statements about its results of operations and financial
condition were materially false and misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to
the restatement of the Company's Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2022 and
June 30, 2022.
On July 16, 2024, the magistrate recommended the case be dismissed
and the plaintiff filed a motion objecting to these recommendations
on July 30, 2024.
The Company responded to these objections and on September 23,
2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit
without prejudice.
On October 23, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended motion for the
Court's review.
Inspirato Incorporated and its subsidiaries is a subscription-based
luxury travel company that provides exclusive access to branded
luxury vacation homes, accommodations at five-star hotel and resort
partners, and custom travel experiences.
J.H.O.C. INC: Williams Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J.H.O.C., Inc. The
case is styled as Parise Williams, Parise Williams, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. J.H.O.C., Inc.
d/b/a Premier Transportation, Case No. 2479CV00542 (Mass. Super.
Ct., Hampden Cty., Sept. 13, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business."
J.H.O.C., Inc. doing business as Premier Transportation --
https://premiertransportation.com/ -- offers a diverse fleet of
luxury vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
Ryan B. Guers, Esq.
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC
One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
Springfield, MA 01144
KANAWHA, VA: Class Cert Bids in G.T. Suit Due Dec. 20
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.T., by his parents
Michelle and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, et al., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
COUNTY OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Irene Berger entered a first amended scheduling order as
follows:
-- Any renewed motions and/or supplemental filings relating to
class certification shall be filed no later than Dec. 20,
2024.
-- The parties shall complete all discovery requests by Mar. 28,
2025.
-- All discovery, including disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.
P.
26(a)(2), but not disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(3), shall be completed by April 25, 2025.
-- The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall make
the
disclosures of information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(A)-(C) for that issue to all other parties or their
counsel no later than Feb. 21, 2025.
-- All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(b),
together
with depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits, or other
such matter in support thereof, shall be filed and served by
June 27, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9DWY9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Seeks to Certify Four Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roderick Roberson, Michael
Hudson, Dylon White, Caleb Schmitt, Justin Berberich, Chris Ulrich,
and Ron Collins, individually and on behalf of the proposed class,
v. The Kansas City Southern Railway Co., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK
(W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying four classes:
Leave Miscalculation Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive- and
Declaratory-Relief Class:
"Current KCS Train Engine & Yard ("TE&Y") employees who have
worked enough hours to be eligible for FMLA leave and who, at
any
time from the implementation of KCS's FMLA leave-calculation
policy in approximately September 2021 through the date KCS
paused
enforcement of that policy in approximately June 2022, (1)
worked
as on-call employees and while working as on-call employees (2)
had used less than 12 weeks of FMLA leave in the prior 365 days
and (3) used intermittent FMLA leave or were deemed by KCS to
have
exhausted their FMLA leave."
Leave Miscalculation Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Class:
"Current and former KCS TE&Y employees who, at any time from
the
implementation of KCS's FMLA leave-calculation policy in
approximately September 2021 through the date KCS paused
enforcement of that policy in approximately June 2022, (1) had
worked enough hours to be eligible for FMLA leave, and (2)
worked
as on-call employees and while working as on-call employees (3)
had used less than 12 weeks of FMLA leave in the prior 365 days
yet were deemed by KCS to have exhausted their FMLA leave."
Board Position Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive- and Declaratory-Relief
Class:
"Current KCS TE&Y employees who have worked enough hours to be
eligible for FMLA leave who, at any time from May 31, 2019 to
the
resolution of this action, (1) worked as on-call employees and
while working as on-call employees (2) took FMLA leave, and (3)
returned from their FMLA leave to a position on a job board
that
was lower than the job-board position held at the time their
FMLA
leave began."
Board Position Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Class:
"Current and former KCS TE&Y employees who, at any time from
May
31, 2019 through May 31, 2023, (1) worked enough hours to be
eligible for FMLA leave, (2) worked as on-call employees and
while
working as on-call employees (3) took FMLA leave, and (4)
returned
from their FMLA leave to a position on a job board that was
lower
than the job-board position held at the time their FMLA leave
began."
The Plaintiffs support their motion with the accompanying
Suggestions and contemporaneously filed declaration and exhibits.
Kansas City Southern Railway offers railway services for shipping
and mobility of people and cargo.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kmyg7x at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
Colin Reeves, Esq.
Emma Freeman, Esq.
APOLLO LAW LLC
333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 927-2969
E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com
colin@apollo-law.com
emma@apollo-law.com
- and -
Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
Mark Thomson, Esq.
CASEY JONES LAW
525 Junction Rd., Suite 6500
Madison, WI 53717
Telephone: (757) 477-0991
E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law
mthomson@caseyjones.law
- and -
Steven L. Groves, Esq.
GROVES POWERS LLC
One U.S. Bank Plaza
505 N. 7th St., Suite 2010
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 696-2300
E-mail: sgroves@grovespowers.com
KLAYMAN & TOSKES: Castillo Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNETTE CASTILLO, HER HUSBAND FELIX M. AVILES FRANCO, THEIR
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP AND PERSONNEL RECRUITING SERVICE, CORP.,
Plaintiffs v. KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A., LAWRENCE L. KLAYMAN, STEVEN
TOSKES, INSURANCE COMPANY A AND INSURANCE COMPANY B Defendants,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01427-CVR (D.P.R., September 16, 2024) is an
action brought by Plaintiffs, clients of legal services in Puerto
Rico, on their behalf and that of all similarly situated victims
against Defendants Klayman Toskes PA, and the Individual
Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor,
and good faith and abuse of their control of Plaintiffs' claims for
damages related to the PR Bonds debacle.
This lawsuit arises from a scheme by Defendants to mislead hundreds
of victims of UBS Financial Services Inc. of Puerto Rico, Santander
Securities, LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC, Popular
Securities LLC, Merril Lynch PR, and other broker dealers in Puerto
Rico, who had lost millions of dollars through those broker dealers
in Puerto Rico Bonds and UBS PR, Popular and Santander affiliated
non-exchange-traded closed-end funds from 2012 to 2020.
The alleged scheme involved false representations by Defendants
when contracting with Plaintiffs to represent them in claims to
recover their losses for a contingent fee without telling them they
had not obtained an admission to practice law in Puerto Rico as
required by the Rules set forth by the Supreme Court of Puerto
Rico, committing thus a crime under PR Laws Title 1.
The Defendants, provided them with material legal advice through
mail, phone and in person that they were not authorized to do, and
collected legal fees and withdrew clients' funds from their
Interest Only in Lawyers' Trust Accounts, without clients' informed
consent, thus, incurring mail and wire fraud, and defrauded the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court of their $800 fee for Pro Hac Vice
admission and were, therefore, practicing the law illegally in
Puerto Rico, says the suit.
Klayman & Toskes, P.A. is a national securities law firm based in
Boca Raton, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Luis E. Minana, Esq.
ESPADA, MINANA & PEDROSA LAW OFFICES, PSC
122 Domenech Ave.
Altos Baldrich
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 758-1999
Cellphone: (787) 402-2226
E-mail: minanalaw@yahoo.com
- and -
Hector Eduardo Pedrosa-Luna, Esq.
ESPADA, MINANA & PEDROSA LAW OFFICES, PSC
P.O. Box 9023963
San Juan, PR 00902-3963
Telephone: (787) 920-7983
Facsimile: (787) 764-7511
E-mail: hectorpedrosa@gmail.com
- and -
Jennie Espada Ocasio, Esq.
ESPADA, MINANA & PEDROSA LAW OFFICES, PSC
PO Box 13811
San Juan, PR 00908
Telephone: (787) 758-1999
Facsimile: (787) 633-7199
E-mail: espada.esquire@gmail.com
LG ENERGY: Faces Mathies Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D. Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MATHIES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LG ENERGY SOLUTION MICHIGAN, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-12872-SDK-APP (E.D. Mich., October 30,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee from approximately January 2022 through the present.
LG Energy Solution Michigan, Inc. is a manufacturer of lithium-ion
batteries, headquartered in Hazel Park, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
LINDT & SPRUNGLI: Continues to Defend Food Safety Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Colombo, writing for Daily Dot, reports that it's a
little-known fact that some chocolate is full of harmful metals.
According to The Chocolate Professor, lead can get into the cacao
beans dark chocolate is made of because the beans dry in the sun.
Meanwhile, cadmium is absorbed from the soil in which cacao trees
are grown.
Amid a recent lawsuit related to this issue, Angela
(@thelawyerangela), TikTok's favorite lawyer, shared a screen
recording from the Consumer Reports website. She primarily focused
on four parts of the site: a list of chocolates high in lead, high
in cadium, high in both, and finally, those which were considerably
lower in both.
"Now if you look at that number next to the red bar, that
percentage correlates to [how much metal] is in one ounce of these
dark chocolate bars relative to the California maximum allowable
dose level for a whole day," she says.
Chocolate bars high in lead include Hu (210%), Hershey's (265%),
and Lily's (144%). She then shared those high in cadmium. These
included Beyond Good (112%), Equal Exchange (120%), and Scraffen
Berger 136%. Bars with too much of both included Theo, Trader Joes,
Lily's, and Green & Black.
Finally, Angela shared a list of the chocolate bars with the lowest
amounts of lead and cadmium. These were Mast, Taza, Ghiradelli, and
Valrhona.
Viewers react to the news
Many commenters pointed out that they didn't have such lists for
chocolate made in the UK and New Zealand. However, those to who the
list did apply were horrified.
"For goodness sake. I've been eating a square of dark chocolate a
day!" one wrote.
"I have been eating dark chocolate for years because it was
'healthy,'" another echoed.
While a third complained, "nothing is safe."
Angela didn't immediately respond to the Daily Dot's request for
comment via TikTok comment and email.
What's the Lindt & Sprungli lawsuit?
In a viral video, attorney Kathleen Martinez(@attorneymartinez)
explained why Lindt & Sprungli was facing legal trouble.
Allegedly, the company is being sued for false advertising,
deceptive practices, and "many other violations of consumer law."
As she pointed out, the class-action lawsuit alleges that the
brand's chocolate might contain heavy metals, which, over time, can
become harmful.
According to Martinez, they found "significant levels" of lead and
cadmium in the business' chocolate; and allegedly, Lindt & Sprungli
knew this back in 2014. So, if you have purchased Lindt & Sprungli
chocolate, you might be part of a class-action lawsuit.
In an email to the Daily Dot, a Lindt spokesperson shared the
following statement:
"We are aware of the lawsuit that was filed. Lindt & Sprungli
intends to vigorously defend itself against these entirely unproven
challenges to our products. Like all of our products, our
EXCELLENCE 85% and EXCELLENCE 70% chocolate bars meet strict
quality and food safety requirements and are safe to consume." [GN]
MATTEL INC: Final OK Hearing on Settlement Set for Jan. 28, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTEL 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 multidistrict
Sleeper class suit settlement final approval hearing is scheduled
on January 28, 2025.
A number of putative class action lawsuits filed between April 2019
and October 2019 are pending against Fisher-Price, Inc. and/or
Mattel, Inc. asserting claims for false advertising, negligent
product design, breach of warranty, fraud, and other claims in
connection with the marketing and sale of the Fisher-Price Rock 'n
Play Sleeper (the "Sleeper").
In general, the lawsuits allege that the Sleeper should not have
been marketed and sold as safe and fit for prolonged and overnight
sleep for infants.
The putative class action lawsuits propose nationwide and over 10
statewide consumer classes comprised of those who purchased the
Sleeper as marketed as safe for prolonged and overnight sleep.
The class actions have been consolidated before a single judge in
the United States District Court for the Western District of New
York for pre-trial purposes pursuant to the U.S. federal courts'
Multi-District Litigation program.
In June 2022, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
damages and injunctive relief classes under New York law, but
granted plaintiffs' request to certify a New York issue class to
resolve two issues on a class-wide basis.
In October 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition to appeal the denial of
certification of the damages and injunctive relief classes.
On July 24, 2024, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the
court to resolve this litigation. On August 9, 2024, the settlement
was preliminarily approved by the court.
A final approval hearing is scheduled for January 28, 2025.
Mattel, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets a broad variety of
children's toy products on a worldwide basis. The Company sells its
products to retailers and directly to consumers. [BN]
MDL 2873: Conways Alleges Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS CONWAY and CARMEN CONWAY, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-06073-RMG (D.S.C., October 24, 2024) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The 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.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
Plaintiff Thomas Conway regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career. He was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Conway case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
MDL 2873: Garcia Alleges Illness Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY GARCIA, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA LUSS., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06076-RMG
(D.S.C., October 24, 2024) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.
According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The 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.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, the suit alleges.
The Garcia case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 224-9400
MERRICK PARK: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERRICK PARK LLC, ZAHRKO
ENTERPRISES INC., NORDSTROM, INC., and THE NEIMAN-MARCUS GROUP,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24231 (S.D. Fla., October 30,
2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to
discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block
them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The
Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered
architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance
access and path of travel, and public restrooms.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove
the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when
such removal is readily achievable for the place of public
accommodation.
Merrick Park LLC is a commercial property owner and operator doing
business in Coral Gables, Florida.
Zahrko Enterprises Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator
doing business in Coral Gables, Florida.
Nordstrom, Inc. is a commercial property owner and operator doing
business in Coral Gables, Florida.
The Neiman-Marcus Group, LLC is a commercial property owner and
operator doing business in Coral Gables, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Coral Gables, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
MICAH REED: Discovery Matters Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A,
v. MICAH REED, Case No. 2:24-cv-09243-PA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Percy Anderson entered a standing order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant
to
Local Rule 5-3.1.
-- Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this
Court,
including all status and settlement conferences.
-- All discovery matters have been referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes.
-- Unless there is a likelihood that upon motion by a party the
Court
would order that any or all discovery is premature, it is
advisable for counsel to begin to conduct discovery actively
before the Scheduling Conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=46OYfA at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICHIGAN: Deadline for Settlement Claims Filing Set for Dec. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Roberts of Detroit Free Press reports that pandemic-era
unemployment insurance claimants who believe they were wrongly told
they owed money back to the state, or had their wages garnished or
tax returns seized, now have until Dec. 20 to register for a class
action settlement.
The claim filing deadline -- originally Nov. 4 -- was recently
extended by the Michigan Court of Claims. Claimants who submit a
claim are estimated to receive a payment of $250 or more.
Those who have been identified as eligible should have received an
email and postcard notifying them that they are eligible and can
register for the settlement in October, the settlement
administrator said.
Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency agreed to pay $55 million
in April and make changes to how it processes claims as part of a
settlement it reached in a lawsuit filed by several workers who
received jobless benefits in the pandemic but then were told they
owed the money back, and, in some cases, had their wages garnished
or tax returns seized.
The claimants filed the lawsuit, Saunders v. Michigan Unemployment
Insurance Agency, in the Michigan Court of Claims in January 2022.
They argued that their due process rights had been violated after
they received benefits in the pandemic and then were told they were
overpaid benefits and had to pay them back before protests and
appeals were resolved.
As many as 1.83 million claimants were approved for some form of
unemployment insurance benefits in the pandemic. After they
received the benefits, they were then told they weren't eligible
amid evolving guidance on eligibility from the federal government.
Michigan's UIA said those claimants had to pay the money back and
in some cases, the agency clawed back money from those claimants.
Collection activities were paused in December 2022 as part of a
court order for any claimant who filed for benefits on or after
March 1, 2020, and who received an overpayment letter and appealed
or protested the decision.
More on unemployment insurance:Years post-pandemic, some
out-of-work Michiganders are waiting on unemployment benefits
More on Michigan's economy:U-M forecast says Michigan's economy at
a crossroads: What the next two years may bring
A final approval hearing for the class action settlement is
scheduled for March 20.
For more information, visit BWclassactions.com or call
866-499-4565. [GN]
MRB2024 LLC: Contestants File Suit Over Labor Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
CONTESTANT 1, a California resident, CONTESTANT 2, a California
resident, CONTESTANT 3, a California resident, CONTESTANT 4, a
California resident, CONTESTANT 5, a United States resident, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MRB2024, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability
Company; OFF ONE'S BASE, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability
Company; AMAZON ALTERNATIVE LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV24042 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., September 16, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
proposed class consisting of "all individuals who were engaged as
purported contestants in the Beast Games content production in
Defendant production companies and Amazon shamelessly exploited the
labor of approximately people who served as contestants on the
forthcoming $100-million-dollar MrBeast(R)-Amazon production Beast
Games, which Amazon promotes as "the world's largest live gameshow"
with the "biggest single prize in the history of television and
streaming." The Beast Games' entertainment value arises directly
from the physical and emotional labor of the contestants who
compete under pressure-cooker conditions for life-changing prize
money, with one person purportedly to win five million dollars in
the end.
According to the complaint, the Defendants relied on the
misclassification as a false justification to avoid paying
employment taxes and to spare the Production the costs of
implementing various employment protections required under
California law, including, minimum wages, overtime, mandatory meal
and rest breaks, workers compensation benefits, itemized wage
statements and timely payment of wages and reimbursements, among
other things.
The Plaintiffs have filed this action using pseudonyms and applying
conservative redactions that limit public viewing in a good faith
effort to comply with Defendants' overbroad confidentiality
provisions (which Plaintiffs allege are unenforceable), as well as
to preserve the confidentiality and privacy interests of the
Plaintiffs who wish to avoid opprobrium.
MRB2024, LLC is a production company believed to be owned in whole
or part, directly or indirectly, by James Donaldson, the creator
and face of the YouTube-originated MrBeast(R) brand.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert N. Pafundi, Esq.
PAFUNDI LAW FIRM, APC
11693 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 824
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Telephone: (424) 832-3502
E-mail: robert@pafundilawfirm.com
- and -
Lizelle S. Brandt, Esq.
Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
SINGIAN LAW
1055 E. Colorado Blvd., Ste. 500
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 844-5050
E-mail: lizelle@singianlaw.com
andrew@singianlaw.com
- and -
Courtney Stuart-Alban, Esq.
STUART ALBAN LAW
87 N Raymond Ave, Ste 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (323) 405-9898
E-mail: courtney@stuartalbanlaw.com
- and -
Arthur Y. Whang, Esq.
WHANG LAW FIRM, P.C.
5850 Canoga Ave., Ste 400
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (310) 479-7300
E-mail: arthur@whanglaw.com
MY DAILY: Filing for Consolidated Class Suit Extended to Nov. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: MY DAILY CHOICE, INC. Data Breach
Litigation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00254-ART-CSD (D. Nev.), the Hon.
Judge Anne Traum entered an order granting stipulation to extend
the Plaintiffs' deadline to file consolidated class action
complaint and defendant's response to the consolidated complaint
(third request).
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint shall be extended to Nov. 25, 2024
-- The Deadline for Defendant to file its answer or responsive
pleading to the Complaint shall be extended to Jan. 9, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JqVaCF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mona Amini, Esq.
Gustavo Ponce, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89113
- and -
David C. O'Mara, Esq.
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 East Liberty Street
Reno, NV 89501
Telephone: (775) 323-1321
The Defendant is represented by:
Jared M. Sechrist, Esq.
Erika Pike Turner, Esq.
GARMAN TURNER GORDON LLP
7251 Amigo Street, Suite 210
Las Vegas, NV 89119
MYNARIC AG: Torstorff Sues Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------
ALEX TORSTORFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MYNARIC AG; MUSTAFA VEZIROGLU; and STEFAN
BERNDT-VON BULOW, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07602 (E.D.N.Y.,
Oct. 30, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Mynaric securities between June 20, 2024 and
October 7, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
lower-than-expected production yields and component supplier
shortages of key components were causing production delays for
Mynaric's CONDOR Mk3 product; (ii) the foregoing issues were likely
to have a material negative impact on the Company's revenue growth
and cause the Company to incur an operating loss; (iii) as a
result, Mynaric was unlikely to meet its own previously issued
financial guidance for FY 2024; (iv) accordingly, the Company's
business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (v) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Mynaric's ADS price fell $0.07 per ADS, or 4.37 percent, to close
at $1.53 per ADS on October 8, 2024.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Mynaric Agnamens Aktien O N provides laser communication solutions.
The Company offers optical ground stations, air to ground and air
to air terminals, data rates, and long distance wireless data
transmission between moving objects for terrestrial, airborne, and
space applications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and -
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
GROSSMAN, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
Email: peretz@bgandg.com
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Nov. 22
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kolev, et al., v. NATIONAL
FREIGHT, INC. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107 (D.N.J., Filed Aug.
10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez entered an order that
the Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no
later than Nov. 22, 2024.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
National Freight provides logistics services.[CC]
NEW ENCHANTMENT: Class Settlement in Davila Suit Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Davila,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
New Enchantment Group, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01098-SRB (D. Ariz.),
the Hon. Judge Susan Bolton entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement:
The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as
follows:
"the 5,568 individuals identified by Defendant as having
personally
identifiable information compromised by the Data Breach and to
whom
Defendant provided written or substitute notice of the Data
Breach
on either February 28, 2023, or June 6, 2023."
The Settlement Class shall not include Defendant or its
parents,
subsidiaries, divisions, or affiliates, or their respective
successors or predecessors, or any entity in which Defendant or
its
parents has a controlling interest, or any of their current or
former officers and directors; any judge providing over the
Lawsuit
and members of their families; persons who properly execute and
file a timely request for exclusion from the Settlement Class;
persons whose claims in this matter have been finally
adjudicated
on the merits or otherwise released; Plaintiff’s counsel,
Class
Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel; and the legal representatives,
successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
The Court finds that Plaintiff will likely satisfy the requirements
of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class
Representative.
The Court appoints A.B. Data as the Settlement Administrator,
New Enchantment develops and manages resorts, spas, and golf
courses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XiPDl1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK BAKERY: Faces Pollitt Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BAKERY GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-07591-LDH-SJB (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State
Civil Rights Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.padocabakery.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, the lack of navigation links, changing of content
without advance warning, inaccessible contact information,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form
fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
New York Bakery Group LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
NEW YORK, NY: Dorce Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCONNELL DORCE, CECELIA
JONES, and SHERLIVIA THOMAS-MURCHISON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, LOUISE
CARROLL (Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing
Preservation and Development), SHERIF SOLIMAN (Commissioner of the
New York City Department of Finance), NEIGHBORHOOD RESTORE HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND CORP., and BSDC KINGS COVENANT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FUND COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02216-JLR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for, certifying the following
proposed classes, appointment of Named Plaintiffs' undersigned
attorneys as counsel to these classes, and such other and further
relief as the Court deems just, proper, and equitable:
1. All persons whose properties Defendants transferred during
Round
10 of the Third Party Transfer Program (the "TPT Program")
under
City Admin. Code sections 11-401 et seq. that had value in
excess of the tax liens thereon ("Surplus Equity").
2. All persons whose properties the Defendants transferred
during
Rounds 1-9 of the TPT Program under City Admin. Code sections
11-401 et seq. that had Surplus Equity.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r8R8hU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
Yolande I. Nicholson, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
E-mail: mberman@vkvlawyers.com
rvalli@vkvlawyers.com
attorneynicholson@gmail.com
- and -
Keith H. Wofford, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
200 South Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131
E-mail: kwofford@whitecase.com
- and -
Gregg L. Weiner, Esq.
Alexander B. Simkin, Esq.
Leon Kotlyar, Esq.
Ethan M. Weinberg, Esq.
Mohammed S. Hassan, Esq.
Casey M. Berger, Esq.
Daniel Yanofsky, Esq.
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 596-9000
E-mail: Gregg.Weiner@ropesgray.com
Alexander.Simkin@ropesgray.com
Leon.Kotlyar@ropesgray.com
Ethan.Weinberg@ropesgray.com
Mohammed.Hassan@ropesgray.com
Casey.Berger@ropesgray.com
Daniel.Yanofsky@ropesgray.com
NORTH MISSISSIPPI HEALTH: Wood Appeals Summary Judgment to 5th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STANLEY WOOD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Stanley Wood, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. North Mississippi Health
Services, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-00042-TBM-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Mississippi.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
alleged that the Defendants are engaged in a practice of collecting
unauthorized amounts from out-of-network patients. The unauthorized
collections occur after the providers send "balance bills" to
out-of-network patients for the difference between what their plans
have agreed to pay and the patients' cost-sharing responsibilities
and the full amount charged by the providers for their services.
On Jan. 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class.
On May 4, 2023, Defendant Alliance Collection Service, Inc. filed a
motion to dismiss, motion for summary judgment. On same day,
Defendants North Mississippi Clinics, LLC, North Mississippi Health
Services, Inc., North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc., and Tupelo
Service Finance, Inc. also filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.
On Sept. 29, 2023, Judge Taylor B. McNeel entered an order denying
the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and granting Alliance
Collection Service Inc.'s motion to dismiss or for summary
judgment; and other Defendants' motion for partial summary
judgment.
On Nov. 17, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on remaining claims, which Judge McNeel granted on Sept.
30, 2024. The case was dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned Wood v. North MS Health Services,
Case No. 24-60546, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit, filed on October 28, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants STANLEY WOOD, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Lawrence John Tucker, Jr., Esq.
HICKMAN, GOZA & SPRAGINS, P.L.L.C.
1305 Madison Avenue
P.O. Box 668
Oxford, MS 38655
Telephone: (662) 234-4000
Defendants-Appellees NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER,
INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by:
Mark Nolan Halbert, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR, L.L.P.
105 E. Main Street
Tupelo, MS 38804
Telephone: (662) 842-7907
NORTHERN TERRITORY STOLEN: Claimants Disappointed With Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Bardon, writing for ABC News, reports that some claimants in
the NT Stolen Generations class action have been told they will
receive as little as $3,000 from a $50.45 million settlement.
The law firm that represented the claimants says it has distributed
money in accordance with a scheme approved in court.
Of the $50.45 million settlement, $11 million has been spent on
legal fees and insurance.
What's next?
The claimants and a senior barrister are calling for more federal
government regulation over how class actions are run in Australia.
Descendants of the Northern Territory Stolen Generations who won a
$50.45 million class action settlement are angry to discover some
will receive just a few thousand dollars each, or nothing at all.
In 2022, Shine Lawyers successfully argued that by causing trauma,
distress and other harms to children forcibly removed under
assimilation policies between 1912 and 1973, the federal government
breached its duty of care to them, and to their siblings and
carers.
Shine also successfully argued the spouses and children of members
of the Stolen Generations who had died and missed out under the
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme should receive
compensation as well.
The redress scheme only provided compensation to people still
living by the time it was established in 2021.
Darwin man Brian Long and his brothers heard the stories of how
their father John was regularly beaten in the Garden Point Catholic
mission on the Tiwi Islands, after being removed from his home in
Ti Tree.
Mr Long said he and his brothers were impacted by the damage caused
to their father.
"He didn't like religion, so the Catholic brothers tried to beat it
into him," he said.
"My dad used to beat us up but I don't hold that against him
because that's how they grew him up, he thought that was the
norm."
Mr Long and his siblings jumped at the chance offered by the class
action to receive compensation on behalf of their parents.
But Mr Long said he was disappointed to now be told by Shine that
he would receive about $3,000.
"They've created a mess, we're getting traumatised again just for a
lousy couple thousand dollars for my parents, who lived on that
island, incarcerated for over 20 years," he said.
Payouts causing family disputes
Other children of Stolen Generations members, like Douglas Shields,
have been told they will get nothing.
"They led us along, because we all filled out the forms, and in the
last week before the money was meant to be paid out, they told us
we were ineligible," Mr Shields said.
Jeanneen McLennan said the settlement division had caused disputes
between families in which some members were found eligible and
others not.
"Shine's decision is causing friction between families, and that's
not any good to our mental health, especially because a lot of the
Stolen Generation descendants have mental health issues," she
said.
Money divided in accordance with court-approved scheme
In a statement, Shine Lawyers said it was "aware that some
registered representatives are unhappy with the outcome of the
eligibility assessments".
But the statement also said Shine was required to divide the money
in accordance with the Settlement Distribution Scheme that it
devised, and the New South Wales Supreme Court approved.
"Settlement money in this class action is awarded to the estate of
the deceased group member who was a removed child . . . or living
in a close relationship with the child at the time they were
removed," the statement said.
Shine said where compensation was granted to a person's estate, the
subsequent division of money "mirrors the intestacy (inheritance)
laws of the Northern Territory".
The inheritance laws state that money should go to a person's will
executor and no other person.
But if no will exists, money is granted to the person's spouse, and
if they have no spouse, then it goes to their children.
"Which is why registered children of members of the Stolen
Generations are not automatically entitled to receive settlement
money," Shine's statement said.
"The eligibility criteria has always been available to the public .
. . on our website."
Where a Stolen Generations member has several heirs or children,
Shine said that person's share "is divided equally among the
registered representatives of that estate".
'Totally confused everyone'
Claimant Yvonne Dunn, whose parents were abused at Garden Point,
said she felt Shine Lawyers over-complicated the settlement scheme,
making the final payments unfair.
"These categories have just totally confused everyone, trying to
work out whether the money will go to carers, siblings, or children
of the deceased parents," she said.
"Members of our families are getting $5,000 or $6,000 per parent.
You can't say that's compensation, that's basically an insult to
our parents' legacies.
"We've been traumatised all our lives, and then they promised us
something and we felt good about it, and now they've snatched it
all away from us, and so we just feel traumatised and worthless."
Of the $50.45 million settlement, $11 million has gone to legal
fees and insurance, leaving $39.5 million for the claimants.
Shine Lawyers said the costs were published and approved by the
court up front.
Federal Indigenous Australians Minister Malarndirri McCarthy said
the "the Commonwealth isn't involved in the administration of the
settlement distribution" but would "closely monitor the matter".
The unhappy claimants have sought advice from veteran Darwin
barrister John Lawrence SC.
Mr Lawrence said he wanted the federal government to do more to
regulate class actions.
"There is a growing anger from claimants who get vacuumed into
class actions and then don't get much money in return, and yet
consistently these companies which run class actions are securing
very high amounts in their fees," he said.
"So I would to like to see a proper inquiry into how these class
actions are run, and I think there has to be some form of
regulation that ensures that this kind of thing can't occur." [GN]
NOVOCURE LIMITED: Continues to Defend LUNAR Clinical Trial Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Limited disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from LUNAR clinical trial
related class suit.
In June 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its Executive Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer.
The complaint, later amended to add our Chief Financial Officer as
a defendant, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
ordinary shares of the Company from January 5, 2023 through June 5,
2023, alleges material misstatements and/or omissions in the
Company's public statements with respect to the results from its
phase 3 LUNAR clinical trial.
The Company believes that the action is without merit and plans to
defend the lawsuit vigorously.
NovoCure Ltd. is a Canadian industrial applications and services
company into surgical and medical instruments and apparatus.
NURTURE INC: Sanchez Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Documents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and
BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and
those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order sealing certain portions of the following
documents that have been designated as confidential by other
parties: Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; supporting
exhibits to the declaration of Hayley R. Reynolds; and the
declaration of Colin Weir.
These documents contain information designated as confidential or
highly confidential by Defendants pursuant to the protective order
entered in this case. Specifically, information derived from
material designated confidential appears at:
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification at pages 1, 3, 4, 5,
6,
7, 9.
-- Declaration of Hayley R. Reynolds, Exs. 1-55.
-- Declaration of Colin Weir at pages 4-7, 20.
The Plaintiffs make this motion at the request of Defendant
pursuant to Local Civil Rules 7- 11 and 79-5. In accordance with
the local rules, Defendant will identify the specific portions of
the documents that they seek to seal, and which remaining portions
can be filed in a redacted public version.
The Defendant will also provide in a separate filing, as provided
by the local rules, the evidentiary basis for their requests to
seal and a proposed order. Plaintiffs reserve the right to oppose
portions of their requests that exceed the scope of the protective
order and applicable law.
Nurture is a children's organic food manufacturer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 25, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rGSVnv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
hayley@gutridesafier.com
NURX INC: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NURX INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08080 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://nurx.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 25, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Nurx RegrowRx Spray from
Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff
encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public. She 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
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Nurx Inc. is a digital healthcare company which operates the
website.[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
OAK AND BARREL: Pollitt Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OAK AND BARREL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-07593 (E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.oakandbarrelnyc.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, the lack of navigation links, changing of content
without advance warning, inaccessible contact information,
inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form
fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Oak And Barrel, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (347) 941-4715
Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com
ONEPOINT PATIENT: Schubert Jonckheer Investigates Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Lawyers reports that Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is
investigating a data breach impacting the private personal and
health information of 795,916 patients of OnePoint Patient Care, an
Arizona-based hospice pharmacy.
On or about October 21, 2024, OnePoint notified patients that a
threat actor accessed its computer network and obtained data from
its systems. As a result of the data breach, the threat actor stole
the private, personal information of one point's patients.
In mid-September 2024, the Inc Ransom ransomware group reportedly
claimed responsibility for the data breach, adding OnePoint to its
Tor-based leak site. OnePoint, however, did not notify patients
until over a month later, which may have violated state and federal
laws.
OnePoint recently informed patients that the following private
information may have been stolen in the breach: customer names,
residence information, medical record numbers, diagnosis and
prescription information, and Social Security numbers.
If your personal information was impacted by this incident, you may
be at risk of identity theft, healthcare fraud, and other serious
violations of your privacy. As a result, you may be entitled to
money damages and an injunction requiring changes to the company's
cybersecurity practices. [GN]
OTTAWA, ON: Bus Crash Class Action to Proceed as Individual Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy Nease of CBC News reports that a proposed class action
lawsuit against the City of Ottawa that failed to get certification
after years of appeals can now proceed as an individual case, along
with four new claims related to a fatal bus crash in 2019, a
Superior Court judge has ruled.
It's coming up on six years since a double-decker OC Transpo bus
slammed into the awning of a shelter at Westboro station on Jan.
11, 2019, killing three people and injuring dozens of others.
So far, the city and its insurers have paid out a combined $29.4
million on 24 settlements related to the crash. There are 11
remaining claims, the city said Wednesday, October 30.
The statute of limitations to file suit passed years ago, but last
week Justice Calum MacLeod ruled that five individual lawsuits can
go ahead despite the passage of time. That's because their
allegations were included in the original proposed class action --
and because the statute clock was stopped for more than four years
as it made its way through the courts on appeal.
Marcel Pinon was the lead plaintiff in the proposed $60-million
class action, notice of which was filed just six days after the
crash.
He was sitting on the main floor of the double-decker bus when it
crashed and was thrown from his seat, according to the claim. It
alleges he suffered physical and psychological injuries including
increased anxiety and difficulty sleeping.
Certification first refused in 2021
Certification of the proposed class action was first refused in
January 2021. Pinon and Merchant Law Group -- the firm handling the
case -- appealed the decision at Divisional Court, then the Court
of Appeal for Ontario and finally the Supreme Court, which
dismissed the case for good in March 2023.
The main reason the class action was refused was the "oddity" of
suing the city specifically for alleged systemic negligence,
including road design, bus station design, vehicle design and road
repair, according to MacLeod's decision, dated Oct. 21.
The plaintiffs and counsel weren't pursuing the more typical
automobile accident aspects of the case, including the city's
liability as the owner of the bus that crashed, or Aissatou
Diallo's liability as the driver of the bus.
Now, they're changing course.
The city "expresses some outrage" that they're pursuing operator
and direct negligence after steadfastly pursuing the systemic
negligence angle all the way to the Supreme Court, MacLeod wrote.
"No doubt this is frustrating," but it doesn't prevent the
plaintiffs from relitigating. Nor is there evidence of an abuse of
process, MacLeod added.
4 new suits seek $4M
The four new lawsuits were filed last year.
Julie Carswell is suing the city for $1.25 million. She was sitting
on the right-hand side of the upper deck, directly behind her
friend who was in the front row, according to her claim.
Carswell was thrown from her seat by the crash. When she looked up,
everyone in the front row had disappeared, including her friend. As
she helped move people away from the hole at the front of the bus,
she looked out and saw her friend and other victims on the ground.
(Her friend survived, but still had not returned to work as of July
2023.)
Two days later, Carswell was diagnosed with a concussion, whiplash
and symptoms of trauma and PTSD, according to her claim. She had
applied for a promotion, but when she returned to work and started
training for the new job, she realized she could no longer do it
because it was too triggering. She accepted a demotion instead, her
claim states.
In a statement of defence, the city admits the crash was caused by
negligent operation of the bus, but denies all other allegations of
negligence, fault, breach of duty and liability.
The city denies that Carswell sustained injuries or damages, and
that her injury claims "are excessive, exaggerated," or were caused
or contributed to by a pre-existing condition or injury.
City respects court's decision
Kael Grant, Sylvia Collins, Tin Bui and their families are suing
for $900,000 each.
Like Carswell, Grant was seated on the right-hand side of the upper
deck. He suffered a serious knee injury that is expected to cause
permanent pain despite ongoing treatment, according to his claim.
Grant was also diagnosed with PTSD. He, his spouse and children
claim that his high anxiety and pain have affected his ability to
parent and to advance in his career.
Bui was also on the bus, but his claim doesn't specify where. He
suffered a serious ankle injury that he still needs treatment for,
and which his doctors say will be lifelong, according to the claim.
He was later diagnosed with depression and suffers debilitating
anxiety attacks and flashbacks that affect his ability to parent
and advance at work, the claim states.
Collins was standing on the ground floor near the driver when the
crash happened. She suffered a serious knee injury and had to walk
with a cane until December 2020, according to her claim.
"Given her proximity to the front of the bus, [she] had a clear
view of the events leading to the accident and the traumatic
aftermath, including the ejection and death of those who lost their
life after having been thrown from the bus," Collins's claim
states.
She was diagnosed with PTSD and was unable to take proper care of
herself, according to the claim, resulting in a throat infection
that required a week-long stint in intensive care followed by
months of bed rest.
The city has not yet filed its statements of defence in the Grant,
Collins, Bui and Pinon lawsuits.
In an emailed statement, interim city solicitor Stuart Huxley said
the city respects MacLeod's decision allowing the suits to move
forward, and can't comment further because the matters are
ongoing.
Merchant Law Group did not respond to requests for comment. [GN]
PACIFIC RIM: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due March 6, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN DELA CRUZ JR.,
MARTIN DELA CRUZ, and CHRISTOPHER LEEDELRIO, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, v. PACIFIC RIM
LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009 (D.N. Mar. I.), the
Hon. Judge Ramona Manglona entered an order setting the following
dates and deadlines that may only be modified or amended by the
Court based on a showing of good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
16(b)(4):
1. Initial Disclosures filed with the Court Monday, Dec. 9,
2024.
2. Pre-settlement Telephone Conference before Magistrate Judge
Heather L. Kennedy Monday, Dec. 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
3. Settlement Conference before Magistrate Judge Heather L.
Kennedy
Friday, Dec. 20, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.
4. Joinder of Parties Friday, May 9, 2025
5. Amendment of Pleadings Friday, May 9, 2025
6. Motion for Class Certification Deadline Thursday, Mar. 6,
2025
7. Opposition to Class Certification Deadline Thursday, Apr. 3,
2025.
8. Reply for Class Certification Deadline Thursday, April 17,
2025
9. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification Thursday, May 1,
2025,
at 1:30 p.m.
10. Fact Discovery Cutoff Friday, July 25, 2025.
11. Fact Discovery Motions Deadline Thursday, Aug. 7, 2025.
Pacific Rim is a private real estate investment, development and
management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkdDl0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAMS LUNCH: Charges Junk Fees in School Lunch, Price Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GAYNELA PRICE, ATALANTA PIERRE-LOUIS, and JAMIE DANNELLY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAMS
LUNCH ROOM LLC; PCS REVENUE CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., D/B/A PAYPAMS;
and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10178-MCA-AME (D.N.J.,
October 30, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from PayPAMS' practice of charging junk fees for
children's lunch in the U.S. According to a study by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), payment processors like PayPAMS
shake down over $100 million each year from American families.
Critically, the CFPB Report found that the burden of these junk
fees is not born equally with families eligible for free and
reduced-price lunch spending as much as sixty cents of every
school-meal-dollar on payment processing fees. Low-income families
are disproportionately impacted by junk fees charged in connection
with school meal accounts. As a result of the Defendants' illegal
practice, the Plaintiffs suffered an ascertainable loss of an
amount no less than the amount of their payments of fees to
PayPAMS, says the suit.
PAMS Lunch Room LLC is a payment processing company with a
principal office in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
PCS Revenue Control Systems, Inc., doing business as PayPAMS, is a
payment processing company based in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana H. Khader, Esq.
Katherine Aizpuru, Esq.
F. Peter Silva II, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: skhader@tzlegal.com
kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
psilva@tzlegal.com
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Email: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Esther Berezofsky, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 382-4667
Email: eberezofsky@motleyrice.com
- and -
Michael Quirk, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
1717 Arch Street, Suite 3610
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (610) 579-9932
Email: mquirk@motleyrice.com
- and -
Wesley M. Griffith, Esq.
CUTTER LAW P.C.
401 Watt Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95864
Telephone: (916) 290-9400
Facsimile: (916) 588-9330
Email: wgriffith@cutterlaw.com
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Cho Sues Over Sharing Users' Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Paramount Global has been sued for allegedly tracking subscribers'
viewing history.
A class action lawsuit filed in California federal court on Friday,
November 1, accuses Paramount of sharing users' personally
identifiable information, including a record of every video viewed,
with Meta and TikTok, to serve targeted ads. It seeks at least $5
million in monetary damages on behalf of users across the country.
The lawsuit, filed by California resident Victor Cho, alleges a
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, a federal law
barring the disclosure of information about viewing habits that's
long been a thorn in the side of streaming providers. Over the last
decade, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery and Netflix have been sued
for violations. The law, which was enacted by Congress after
Supreme Court justice nominee Robert Bork's rental history was
leaked to a newspaper, carries statutory damages of up to $2,500
per class member and creates a private right of action for
consumers to sue.
The lawsuit against Paramount, like several others, alleges that
the company discloses information to Meta and TikTok when
subscribers watch content on the same browser they're logged onto
the social media platforms. Ad giants Meta and TikTok allow web and
app developers to incorporate tracking tools into their websites
and platforms for free in exchange for information on users.
Paramount "knowingly and intentionally" shared users' viewing
activity to the firms without consent, the filing says.
The scope of the VPPA remains contested. Last year, a federal judge
dismissed a suit against Scripps Network alleging a violation of
the law, though that case involved a different set of
circumstances. The court found that consumers who subscribed to
HGTV.com's newsletter aren't covered by the law because they aren't
considered "subscribers." Scripps stressed that subscribers to the
newsletter didn't purchase goods or services from HGTV.
That ruling bolstered arguments from defendants in identical cases
that simply because a business is engaged in subscription streaming
doesn't mean that all of its products are within the scope of the
law. A federal judge held in a suit accusing AMC of violating the
law that "an individual must do more than simply take advantage of
a provided service -- even if doing so alone allows a provider to
access her information -- in order to have acted as a 'subscriber'
of the provider." Max subscribers who sued WBD for sharing their
personal viewing history with Meta subsequently moved to dismiss a
lawsuit "without prejudice," meaning they can refile or alter the
claims.
Paramount didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN]
PAUL SCHNELL: Roybal Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kristopher Lee Roybal, v.
Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Corrections, sued in his official
capacity, Case No. 0:24-cv-01652-ECT-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge
David Schultz recommends that:
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Certify this Complaint as a
Class-Action
Lawsuit, be denied as moot; and
2. This action be dismissed without prejudice.
Mr. Roybal moves to certify his complaint as a class action
lawsuit. He is the sole remaining plaintiff in this matter and
seeks injunctive relief pertaining to the availability of religious
ceremonies during incarceration.
Roybal was released from incarceration on Oct. 24, 2024. Because
Roybal's claim is for injunctive relief at a correctional facility
where he is no longer confined, this Court recommends denying his
motion as moot and dismissing this case without prejudice.
Moreover, even if Roybal's claim were not moot, this Court would
recommend denying his motion because he is a pro se litigant and
thus cannot adequately represent a class.
Because Roybal proceeds pro se, he does not adequately represent
the interests of members in the class he seeks to certify.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Oct. 28,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B1qv0D at no extra charge.[CC]
PENUMBRA INC: $4.6MM Settlement in PAGA Suit Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Penumbra 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 Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda granted
preliminary approval to the $4.6 million settlement in the PAGA
class suit.
On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the
Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative
class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company
contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims
pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime,
meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage
statements and records, and other similar allegations.
Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company
filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company
employees in California, alleging similar claims.
The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages,
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts.
Following mediation in April 2024, in May 2024 the parties entered
into a formal agreement to settle the claims for an aggregate
amount of $4.6 million, subject to approval by the court.
The proposed settlement agreement was initially submitted to the
court for preliminary approval on June 18, 2024, and the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on October
14, 2024.
The Company recorded an accrual of $4.6 million in its financial
statements for the three months ended March 31, 2024 related to
these matters.
There have been no changes to the accrual as of September 30,
2024.
Penumbra is a global healthcare company that designs, develops,
manufactures and markets a broad portfolio of products for
thrombectomy, embolization, access and immersive healthcare
technologies.
PJJD LLC: Howard Suit Alleges PUMP Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------
GLORIEL HOWARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PJJD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00323
(N.D. Ind., September 16, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Providing Urgent
Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act).
Despite already being required to comply with the FLSA
breastfeeding requirements for more than a decade, after the PUMP
Act came into effect, the Defendant failed to provide a "reasonable
break time for an employee to express breast milk" and fail to
provide a "place . . . that is shielded from view and free from
intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an
employee to express breast milk," all of which is mandated by the
PUMP Act. Instead, its employees are forced to pump breast milk in
unsanitary bathrooms, stock rooms, or their private vehicles, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this collective action lawsuit against
Defendant to seek a remedy that requires Defendant to comply with
the law. She seeks redress for Defendant's violations of the PUMP
Act by, inter alia, requiring Defendant to provide sufficient break
time and a functional place, shielded from view and free from
intrusion, which an employee may use to express breast milk.
The Plaintiff further brings a collective action on behalf of
current and former employees of Defendant who were denied
reasonable breaks and a private secure space to pump at work. The
Defendant intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly harmed Plaintiff
and the members of the Collective by refusing to provide
accommodations that it knows it was obligated to provide under the
PUMP Act, says the suit.
PJJD, LLC operates under the name Pet Supplies Plus with its
principal place of business in Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Mitchell, Esq.
MITCHELL LITIGATION & ADVOCACY
203 W. Wayne St. Ste. 408
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Telephone: (260) 444-6563
E-mail: kevin@MitchellLitigation.com
- and -
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: Iconsidine@sinillp.com
- and -
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
101 North Seventh Street, #827
Louisville, KY 40202
Telephone: (772) 783-8436
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: Ipescia@sirillp.com
PLAINS ALL: Oil Spill Class Suit Settlement Gets Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------
Zak Thomas-Akoo writing for Next.io reports that a $70 million
settlement, originally filed against Plains All American and
brought on behalf of private landowners impacted after the 2015
Refugio Oil Spill, has been finalized and the first payments have
already been issued.
The appeal period for the class action lawsuit, first filed in May
of 2016, ended on Oct. 17 of this year.
According to Cappello and Noe l LLP, a law firm representing some
of the property owners in the suit, the settlement administrator
will send payments directly to property owners in two installments
with the second payment expected in early July of 2025.
The minimum payment owed to property owners is $50,000 and the
average payment is about $250,000 shared Cappello and Noe l LLP
Monday, November 4.
The settlement resolves all class claims by the more than 170
parcels of private property still included in the class action
lawsuit, but some parties from the original filing, such as Zaca
Preserve LLC, have chosen to continue litigation instead of taking
the settlement detailed Cappello and Noel LLP.
Since the lawsuit was initially filed, Plains All American had its
assets sold as part of a broader purchase of the Santa Ynez Unit,
which includes the ruptured pipelines, to Sable Offshore Company
and Pacific Pipeline Company.
The settlement explained that Plains All American as well as other
previous owners, such as ExxonMobil, had, "no obligations or
liability whatsoever under this Settlement Agreement and are not
obligated to pay the Settlement Amount" even in the event that
assets revert back to ExxonMobil or its affiliates, a key component
of Sable Offshore's current ownership agreement over the Santa Ynez
Unit which reverts back to ExxonMobil if oil production is not
restarted by 2026.
"The settlement ends a nine-year battle to win compensation for the
property owners whose land is burdened with the pipeline," said
Barry Cappello, managing partner of Cappello & Noe l LLP. "It was a
long process, but justice has finally been delivered."
"The settlement ends a nine-year battle to win compensation for the
property owners whose land is burdened with the pipeline," said
Barry Cappello, managing partner of Cappello & Noe l LLP. "It was a
long process, but justice has finally been delivered."
Plans to restart oil production in just the last month have been
met with an assortment of local, state, and federal regulatory
actions including outright demands to cease all construction and
safety valves installations in the coastal zone by the California
Coastal Commission, the approval of lease transfers to Sable
Offshore by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, and a
still-pending decision over a production equipment and
infrastructure safety waiver from the California Office of State
Fire Marshal concerning federal regulations compliance.
Your News Channel reached out to the involved law firms who
represented private owners from the lawsuit, the listed settlement
administrator, and the current owners of the Santa Ynez Unit, Sable
Offshore and Pacific Pipeline Company, for comment on the
settlement and have not received a response. [GN]
PROFIRE ENERGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First CECO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Profire Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: PFIE), relating to a
proposed merger with First CECO Environmental Corp. Under the terms
of the agreement, a subsidiary of CECO will commence a tender offer
to acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Profire common
stock at a price of $2.55 per share.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/profire-energy-inc-pfie/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Suit Alleges Unfair Vehicle Insurance Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR GONZALEZ; and DELIA SUAREZ-BELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE CO.; and UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY CO., Defendants, Case
No. 5:24-cv-02284 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 25, 2024) is an action against
the Defendants' systematic claims handling process when they
declare an insured's vehicle a "total loss."
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendants, in
violation of California law, fail to inform their insureds of the
benefits available to them under their automobile insurance policy
and instead manipulate their insureds into transferring ownership
of valuable property, the damaged vehicle, to a sister entity as a
condition to obtaining a cash settlement check for actual cash
value owed them under Defendants' Policy.
The sister entity then sells the damaged vehicle at auction for its
salvage value reaping millions of dollars that belong to
Defendants' insureds, says the suit.
Progressive Select Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats,
renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Merriman, Esq.
HILGERS GRABEN PLLC
655 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 369-6232
Email: mmerriman@hilgersgraben.com
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to July 28, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROMA v. PROSPECT MEDICAL
HOLDINGS, INC. (RE: PROSPECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS INC. DATA BREACH
LITIGATION), Case No. 2:23-cv-03216-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Wendy Beetlestone entered an amended scheduling order as follows:
1. All discovery relating to class-certification shall be
completed
by June 20, 2025.
2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification and any class
certification expert reports shall be filed by July 28, 2025.
Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and any class certification expert reports
shall
be filed by Sept. 15, 2025. Plaintiff's reply in support of
the
motion for class certification and any rebuttal class
certification expert reports shall be filed by Oct. 20, 2025.
All class certification expert discovery shall be completed
by
Oct. 27, 2025.
3. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than 180 days
following an order on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
4. Any party expecting to offer opinion testimony from lay
witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 701 with
respect
to the issues of liability and damages shall, at the time
required for submission of information and/or reports for
expert
witnesses, serve opposing parties with details and/or
documents
covering the lay opinions of the Rule 701 witnesses.
5. Any discovery depositions of merits expert witnesses shall be
completed no later than 30 days following the submission of
replies to expert reports.
6. Any motions for summary judgment and/or Daubert motions shall
be
filed and served on or before 20 days following the
depositions
of merits expert witnesses.
Prospect owns and operates 16 hospitals and more than 165 clinics
and outpatient centers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oo9st8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
RAPID RESPONSE: Class Cert Discovery in Cole Due August 29, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIRGINIA COLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RAPID RESPONSE MARKETING, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01173-NIQA (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro entered a
scheduling order as follows:
-- All discovery shall be completed by: Aug. 29, 2025
-- All affirmative expert reports shall Sept. 30, 2025
be due by:
-- Any rebuttal expert reports are due by: Oct. 30, 2025
-- Plaintiff's motion for class certification Nov. 21, 2025
shall be filed by:
Rapid Response has operated as a frontrunner in lead generation and
Affiliate Marketing, Lead Generation, and Pay Per call inbound call
generation to your business.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 28, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IBA0gp at no extra
charge.[CC]
READING INTERNATIONAL: Parties Seeks Class Cert Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL VALENTINI and
DALLACE BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00255-RFB-MDC (D. Nev.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order setting the following briefing schedule on the motion for
class certification:
Defendants' response shall be due: Nov. 22, 2024
Plaintiffs' reply shall be due: Dec. 13, 2024
Reading International develops, owns, and operates multiplex
cinemas and commercial real estates in the United States,
Australia, and New Zealand.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HR4HXu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
800 Market Street, Suite 1700
St. Louis, MO 63101
- and -
Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
Erica D. Entsminger
EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM
HENRIOD
400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark E. Ferrario, Esq.
Tyler Andrews, Esq.
Matthew P. Hoxsie, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-3773
Facsimile: (702) 792-9002
E-mail: ferrariom@gtlaw.com
tyler.andrews@gtlaw.com
hoxsiem@gtlaw.com
REFRESCO BEVERAGES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Victory Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE VICTORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REFRESCO BEVERAGES US INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV-24-008715 (Cal.
Super., Stanislaus Cty., Oct. 30, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.
Plaintiff Victory was employed by the Defendants as a staff.
Refresco Beverages US Inc. manufactures, packages, and distributes
beverages. The Company offers carbonated soft drinks, juices,
smoothies, sparkling and flavored waters, sport drinks,
ready-to-drink tea, and other non-carbonated beverages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
Shahin Rezvani, Esq.
Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq.
Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq.
Reuben Aguirre, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
srezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com
cbowen@wilshirelawfirm.com
jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com
reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Joint Rule 26(f) Report in Vines Class Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA VINES, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES,
INC. d/b/a BFI WASTE SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00697-UA-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joe Webster entered
an order approving Joint Rule 26(f) report.
The Court approves it with the following modification: within 14
days of the Court's ruling on Plaintiff's anticipated motion for
class certification, the parties shall meet and confer to propose a
new schedule and discovery plan for the merits phase of the case.
The parties shall file a revised discovery plan within five (5)
days thereafter. The Court will then determine whether any further
status conference is appropriate.
Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste
transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JD8O8u at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROBERT LUNA: Boyd Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.L. BOYD, R. CAMOU, and
C. ROBINSON, v. ROBERT LUNA, KATHRYN BARGER, JANICE HAHN, HOLLY
MITCHELL, HILDA SOLIS, LINDEY HORVATH, HUGO MACIAS, and 9 UNKNOWN
NAMED DEFENDANTS, 1–9, Case No. 2:24-cv-05716-SPG-AJR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
class certification is inappropriate because Boyd fails to support
his Motion with any such proof. Because Boyd fails to meet any of
the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), the Court will not conduct an
analysis of the factors required by Rule 23(b).
In sum, Boyd fails to meet his burden to establish commonality.
Boyd asserts, in conclusory fashion, that “the typicality
requirement easily is satisfied because all claims of plaintiff and
of absentees are precisely the same.” (Mot. at 9). See also (id.
at 6). He does not supply the Court with any evidence in support of
this contention. Accordingly, he has not met his burden to prove
typicality.
Boyd initiated this lawsuit on July 8, 2024, seeking relief against
various Los Angeles County officials for alleged unconstitutional
practices at the Men's Central Jail.
On Sept. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QCzHyQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
ROOT INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
Root Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 70020cxReport for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.
On March 19, 2021, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio (Case No. 2:21-cv-01197) on behalf of certain Root
shareholders.
The complaint alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act in
connection with and following the Company's initial public
offering.
The complaint sought unspecified damages.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the claims set forth in the
complaint was granted and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice
on March 31, 2023, which dismissal was affirmed on April 29, 2024,
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August
28, 2024 with the United States Supreme Court, which defendants
have opposed.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations.
Root, Inc. is a holding company. Its subsidiaries are Root
Insurance Company, Root Property & Casualty Insurance Company and
Root Reinsurance Company, Ltd.
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Discovery Deadline Remains Dec. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Brown, et al. v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00242-JL (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Laplante entered a
summary order as follows:
(1) The discovery deadline remains Dec. 1, 2024. Discovery is
not
stayed before that deadline.
(2) Every other proceeding in this case is stayed, which
includes
proceedings on class notice, summary judgment, and trial.
(3) Witness depositions. The plaintiffs may move for leave to
take
de bene esse depositions with a showing of good cause for
each
deposition. Defendants may file a response within ten days
after the motion is filed.
(4) Inspection of the Merrimack plant. The plaintiffs may
conduct
an inspection of the Merrimack plant, the terms of which
shall
be agreed to and filed on or before Nov. 12, 2024.
Saint-Gobain manufactures and distributes plastics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qEJFW9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SALESFORCE INC: Bid to Strike Class Allegations Nixed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roy v. Salesforce, Inc.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01219 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 28, 2024), the Hon.
Judge James Donato entered an order granting Roy's request to file
an amended complaint.
-- An amended complaint may be filed by: Dec. 2, 2024
-- The Defendant may respond to the amended Jan. 3, 2025.
complaint by:
-- Bid to Strike Class Allegations Tossed w/o Prejudice.
-- The Court will consider Rule 23 issues only in the context of a
class certification motion.
-- The parties are advised that underscoring and bolding text in
briefs should be used rarely, if ever.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Salesforce is an American cloud-based software company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.[CC]
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Settlement Deal Reached in Stockholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for October
14, 2024, that On October 14, 2024, Santander Holdings USA, Inc.
entered into a definitive settlement agreement resolving claims in
the class action litigation captioned "In Re Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. Stockholders Litigation," C.A. No. 2022-0689-LWW,
pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery pertaining to alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the 2022 acquisition
of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
The settlement agreement contemplates a combined payment by
defendants of $162.5 million, inclusive of all attorney's fees and
expenses, and a full and complete class-wide release of all claims.
The settlement is subject to approval by the Court.
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. is national commercial bank based in
Boston MA.
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Bennett Due Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion for (1) stay and (2) to withdraw plaintiff's
motion to stay, vacate deadlines, and for reference to a Magistrate
Judge and all other matters of record:
1. The deadline to file any motion for class certification is
stayed until Nov. 12, 2024;
2. On Nov. 12, 2024, the parties will either inform the Court
whether the case has been resolved or suggest modifications
to
the scheduling order; and
3. Plaintiff's contested Motion to Stay, Vacate Deadlines, and
for
Reference to a Magistrate Judge for Further Settlement
Conference is withdrawn and the Clerk of the Court is
directed
to strike it from the Court's docket.
Schnader is a full service law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LOceaZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
SEASUCKER LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEASUCKER, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08140 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://seasucker.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
SeaSucker LLC manufactures and sells innovative vacuum mount
solutions that help to carry accessories by attaching racks
seamlessly to cars and boats. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SELECT REHABILITATION: Allowed to Correct Docket on Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christine McLaughlin,
Crystal Vanderveen, and Justin Lembke, and Scott Hardt,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Select Rehabilitation, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order granting
the Defendants motion to correct docket regarding deadline to
respond to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
Select Rehabilitation provides physical, occupational and speech
therapy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HG0OBO at no extra
charge.[CC]
SIRVA RELOCATION: Rivera Sues Over Compromised Clients' Info
------------------------------------------------------------
ROSALYN RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIRVA RELOCATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09378 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, third
party beneficiary, breach of bailment, and violation of the
California Consumer Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
customers stored within its network systems following a data breach
approximately between September and October 2023. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Sirva Relocation, LLC is a global moving and relocation services
provider with its principal place of business in Independence,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Natalie Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
Email: vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL: Oakleaf Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE OAKLEAF, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST JANITORIAL SERVICE LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02493 (D. Kan., October 30, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Oakleaf worked for Southwest Janitorial from March 2024 until
June 2024.
Southwest Janitorial Service LLC is a cleaning service provider in
Kansas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
8201 Mission Rd., Ste. 250
Prairie Village, KS 66208
Telephone: (913) 766-5585
Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
Email: matt@parmet.law
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Ayoub Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nizar Sami Ayoub, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J.
RIGA, and FRANCOIS J. LEBEL, Case No. 1:24-cv-08138 (S.D.N.Y., Oct.
25, 2024), is brought as a securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Spectrum common stock during the period from May 12,
2022 through September 22, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
who were damaged thereby (the "Class") as a result of the
Defendants' violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The claims asserted in this consolidated action (the "Action") are
alleged against Spectrum, Thomas J. Riga ("Riga"), the Company's
former President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and a former
member of the Company's board of directors, and Francois J. Lebel
("Lebel"), the Company's former Executive Vice President ("EVP")
and former Chief Medical Officer ("CMO"), and arise under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and
promulgated thereunder.
On March 17, 2022, during Spectrum's conference call with investors
and analysts to discuss the Company's fourth quarter 2021 and full
year 2021 financial results, Defendant Lebel stated that Spectrum
would disclose the design and details of the PINNACLE Study after
the first patient was enrolled: "So we plan to give you an update
on the PMR at the later date. Our practice has been that we make
announcement about design and details of a trial once we enroll the
first patient."
The Defendants' representations were materially false and
misleading because they created the false impression that the
PINNACLE Study was enrolling patients and that PINNACLE was on
track to be substantially enrolled by November 24, 2022 (the PDUFA
date), when, in fact, no patients had enrolled, and that Defendants
and the FDA were aligned concerning the design of the PINNACLE
Study to treat patients at the 8 mg BID dose, which was not true.
Unknown to investors, in light of the FDA's concerns about the
inadequate dose optimization data, and pozi's efficacy and safety
data, the FDA did not agree with Defendants on the design of the
PINNACLE Study and had warned Defendants Lebel and/or Riga that
proceeding with PINNACLE at 8 mg BID was at their own risk. Unknown
to investors, as of May 12, 2022, no patients had enrolled in the
PINNACLE Study.
The Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false
or misleading representations or by failing to disclose material
facts they had a duty to disclose while selling millions of shares
of Spectrum common stock at artificially inflated prices.
Defendants should be held accountable for these violations of the
federal securities laws, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Spectrum common stock during the Class
Period.
Spectrum purported to be a biopharmaceutical company focused on
acquiring, developing, and commercializing novel and targeted
oncology therapies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Brandon Fox, Esq.
Chang Hahn, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-7714
Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
bfox@kaplanfox.com
chahn@kaplanfox.com
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Christiansen Seeks to Certify Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN B. CHRISTIANSEN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS J. RIGA, and FRANCOIS J.
LEBEL, Case No. 1:22-cv-10292-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying this action to proceed as a class action pursuant
to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure;
(2) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
(3) appointing Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Class Counsel.
Spectrum operates as a biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Uw0Ky at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
Brandon Fox, Esq.
Chang Hahn, Esq.
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 687-1980
Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
bfox@kaplanfox.com
chahn@kaplanfox.com
STAKE CENTER: Court Sets Hearing for Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRAIN MONROE and ANDRELL
WHITE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE
CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00692-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.),
the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Hanes entered an order setting hearing for
Nov. 14, 2024.
-- The pending motion for class certification and motion for
protective order and corrective notice will be addressed at the
hearing.
Stake Center Locating provides utility locating services for gas,
power, communications, cable, and large fiber optic networks.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gCeXLW at no extra
charge.[CC]
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Class Settlement in Grissom Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRACE GRISSOM,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. STERLING
INFOSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07948-VSB (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Vernon Broderick entered an order granting the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
-- The Court will hold a hearing on May 7, 2025 at Thurgood
Marshall
U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York, at 2:00pm
in
Courtroom 518.
The proposed Agreement consists of two settlement classes. The
"Injunctive Relief Class" is defined as:
"All consumers for whom Sterling matched a record included in a
consumer report based on a name developed through a SSN trace
from
Sept. 25, 2018 through June 4, 2021 wherein the consumer's
first
name, last name and middle name or middle initial did not
exactly
match the first name, last name, middle name or middle initial
of
the record reported."
The "Damages Class" is defined as:
"All consumers for whom Sterling matched a record included in a
consumer report based on a name developed through a SSN Trace
from
Sept. 25, 2018 through June 4, 2021 wherein the consumer's
first
name, last name and middle name or middle initial did not
exactly
match the first name, last name, middle name or middle initial
of
the record reported; and where the consumer either made a
dispute
to the Defendant regarding the report and an amended report was
issued or where a pre-adverse action notice was sent to the
consumer regarding the report."
The parties estimate there are approximately 7,469 members of the
Damages Class. Members of the Damages Class will agree to release
SSN-Trace-related claims against Defendant in exchange for
Defendant depositing $2,500,000 into a common fund, from which
payments will be made to members of the Damages Class.
"If the anticipated fees, costs, and service award are approved,
Damages Class Members are expected to receive checks for between
$175-200 each, with a double payment for those Damages Class
Members that either (i) disputed information on their consumer
reports and where an amended report was issued; or (ii) submit a
claim attesting that they were harmed."
The Plaintiff filed this putative class action on September 25,
2020, alleging that Sterling’s SSN Trace feature was not a
"reasonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy" in
background check reports as required by FCRA, 15 U.S.C. section
1681e(b).
Sterling provides human resource services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RjAI47 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John G. Albanese, Esq.
Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
Minneapolis, MN
The Defendant is represented by:
Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
John W. Drury, Esq.
Robert Tadeusz Szyba, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Chicago, IL and New York, NY
STURM RUGER: Continues to Defend Jones Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Sturm Ruger & Co. 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 the Jones class suit.
The Company is a defendant in Jones v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., a
purported class action lawsuit arising out of a data breach at
Freestyle Solutions, Inc., the vendor who was hosting the Company's
ShopRuger.com website at the time of the breach.
On January 20, 2023, five Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
naming the Company and Freestyle Solutions, Inc. as Defendants.
The Complaint alleges causes of action for negligence, breach of
implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
The Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
On March 27, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' negligence and
unjust enrichment claims against the Company.
The Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, concluding that development of additional
information is required to assess the applicability of the
limitation of liability clause contained in the Company's terms and
conditions of use.
The case is proceeding accordingly.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is principally engaged in the design,
manufacture, and sale of firearms to domestic customers and
manufactures investment castings made from steel alloys and metal
injection molding parts for internal use in its firearms and for
sale to unaffiliated, third-party customers.
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Elliott Sues Over Patients' Unprotected Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ELLIOTT, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY and SUMMIT
PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02970-STV (D. Colo., October 24, 2024) seeks relief for the
consequences of Defendants' failure to reasonably safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class members' private information and their
failure to reasonably provide timely notification to Plaintiff and
Class members that their private information had been compromised.
As part of their operations, the Defendants collect, maintain, and
store highly sensitive personal and medical information belonging
to their patients, including, but not limited to their names,
addresses, date of birth, Social Security numbers (collectively,
"personally identifying information"), medical information,
diagnoses, and health insurance information (collectively, "private
health information"), and billing and financial information.
On April 14, 2024, Summit experienced a data breach incident in
which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed the information systems
and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff
and Class members. On October 18, Summit sent a notice to
individuals whose information was accessed in the data breach.
According to the complaint, the data breach occurred because Summit
failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard
their information systems and databases. Moreover, before the data
breach occurred, Summit failed to inform the public that their data
security practices were deficient and inadequate. Had Plaintiff and
Class members been made aware of this fact, they would have never
provided such information to Summit, says the suit.
Plaintiff Elliott is a resident and citizen of Fort Collins,
Colorado. Plaintiff Elliott was a patient of Summit.
Summit Pathology Laboratories, Inc. is an independent pathology
laboratory that serves hospital systems and physician offices
throughout Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
Mohammed A. Rathur, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
nhagman@caffertyclobes.com
mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
SWIFT PORK: Seeks to Strike Expert Report in Vali Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NICHOLAS VAIL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SWIFT PORK
COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00354-DJH-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 702, striking Exhibit 2, Expert Report of Dr. Mark P. Cal,
of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
Swift Pork produces and processes meat products.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QcxoD9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
H. Max Kelln, Esq.
Benjamin Broadhead, Esq.
Jacob Bylund, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-0300
Facsimile: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: h.max.kelln@faegredrinker.com
ben.broadhaed@faegredrinker.com
jacob.bylund@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Gregory T. Dutton, Esq.
Kathryn A. Eckert, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLP
400 West Market Street, Suite 3200
Louisville, KY 40202-3363
Telephone: (502) 589-5400
Facsimile: (502) 581-1087
E-mail: gdutton@fbtlaw.com
keckert@fbtlaw.com
SWITZERLAND: Investors Class Action Suit Funded by Omni Bridgeway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seah of law.com reports that Big Four Singapore firm Drew &
Napier's class-action lawsuit against the Swiss Financial Market
Supervisory Authority (FINMA) is now formally funded by third-party
litigation funder Omni Bridgeway.
The class of 400 investors is challenging the write-down of $17
billion worth of Additional Tier-1 (AT1) bonds issued by Credit
Suisse.
In the emergency takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS last year, FINMA
ordered $17 billion worth of Credit Suisse's AT1 bonds be written
down. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the write-down
ordered by FINMA reversed the usual order of priority of repayment
of bank and corporate debt on insolvency. AT1 bondholders
consequently will receive no return.
The investor-state action is based on various bilateral investment
treaties that Switzerland has entered with countries across Asia.
According to Drew & Napier, these treaties "obligate Switzerland to
protect investor's rights and ensure that investors are treated
fairly and equitably."
Mahesh Rai, Drew & Napier's lead partner on the matter, said the
claim is on track to soon exceed $250 million. "This claim value
will rise as additional investors continue to sign up," Rai told
Law.com International.
All claimants have confirmed their acceptance of funding from Omni
Bridgeway. Under the terms of the agreement, the costs of the
action and any adverse costs orders are covered by Omni Bridgeway,
so that investors have no out-of-pocket costs in the group action,
Drew & Napier said in a statement.
"In return, Omni Bridgeway is entitled to a share of any damages
recovered by the investors in their claims against Switzerland,"
the firm added.
Omni Bridgeway's financial commitment to the case will depend on,
among other things, the size of the book of claimants who have
signed up to be part of the class. Ultimately, it is a question of
whether the claims are economically viable from their perspective,
Omni Bridgeway's Singapore investment manager Arvindran
Manoosegaran said.
As it stands, the majority of the class-action claimants are based
in Singapore, with some based in Hong Kong and elsewhere, Rai told
Law.com International. The two firms are still working to add more
claimants to the class.
FINMA's write-down of the AT1 bonds has triggered a series of
lawsuits. Representing a group of Credit Suisse bondholders, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan has filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court earlier this year. Other firms including Pallas
Partners, Withers, Clyde & Co and Japanese firms, including
Yamazaki Marunouchi Law Office and Mori Hamada & Matsumoto, are all
separately gathering claimants to file lawsuits to recoup their
losses. [GN]
TALKDESK INC: Lien Sues Over Violation of Privacy Rights
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebekka Lien and Jake Seevers, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TALKDESK, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-06467
(N.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2024), is brought to prevent Defendant from
further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and
to recover statutory damages for Defendant having listened to,
recorded, accessed, read, learned and analyzed the contents of
conversations between Californians and Patagonia and Zumiez without
procuring prior consent, in contravention of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").
By virtue of providing the CX Cloud service, however, Defendant
also taps, intercepts, monitors, listens to, reads, receives,
records, transcribes, learns and analyzes in real time (within
milliseconds or virtually immediately) the contents of
conversations between Californians and customer service
representatives while they are in transit, all without procuring or
requiring callers' consent.
Therefore, when Talkdesk—a separate and distinct third-party
entity from the parties to these conversations—provided CX Cloud
to Patagonia and Zumiez, it was Defendant's intention to record the
confidential communications of Patagonia's and Zumiez's customers.
Neither Defendant nor Patagonia nor Zumiez procured the express
consent--written or otherwise--of persons who interacted with
Patagonia's or Zumiez's Contact Centers, prior to Defendant
listening to, recording, accessing, reading, transcribing, learning
and analyzing the contents of conversations between Californians
and Patagonia's and Zumiez's customer service representatives.
Moreover, Talkdesk has the capability to use the contents of
conversations it collects through its CX Cloud for purposes other
than simply providing a recording to Patagonia or Zumiez, including
improving its services. In sum, CX Cloud was designed to learn and
analyze real-time phone conversa tions. When Talkdesk provided CX
Cloud to Patagonia and Zumiez, Talkdesk understood and therefore
intended to record the communications of customers who called into
those three Con tact Centers. As such, Talkdesk actively offers and
conducts an eavesdropping service as an in dependent third party,
unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was in California when she spoke to a representative
from Patagonia over the phone on July 31, 2024.
Talkdesk provides the CX Cloud as a software-as-a-service ("SaaS")
to other companies operating a customer service center.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neal J. Deckant (State Bar No. 322946)
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ndeckant@bursor.com
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Status Conference in Reed Set for Dec. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Reed v. Tapestry, Inc.,
Case No. 5:22-cv-04546 (N.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 5, 2022), the Hon.
Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order setting a further status
conference for Dec. 10, 2024, at 1:00 PM.
-- The parties are ordered to submit a joint case management
statement by no later than Nov. 26, 2024.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Court continued the deadline to file the
motion for class certification to May 24, 2024, to the parties'
joint stipulation. Plaintiffs failed to file a class certification
motion by the deadline.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation --
Diversity-(Citizenship).[CC]
TARGET CORP: Class Cert Initial Disclosures in Boyd Due Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pearlie Boyd, Alberto
Camacho, Dieisha Hodges, Monic Serrano, Sienna Guerrero-Brown,
Stephanie Puckett, Genna Unley, Connie Wilson, Cami McEvers, Laurie
Cahill, Harmony Deflorio, Joslyn Sanders, Marsha Solmssen, and
Jessica Brodiski, v. Target Corp., Case No. 0:23-cv-02668-KMM-DJF
(D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Dulce Foster entered a pretrial
scheduling order as follows:
-- Deadline for initial disclosures required by Nov. 14, 2024
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1):
-- Deadline for the exchange of documents Dec. 13,
2024.
identified in each party's Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1) initial disclosures:
-- Interim deadline for substantial completion June 5, 2025
of document production:
-- Deadline for service of deposition notices July 31, 2025
or subpoenas under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6):
-- Deadline for completion of mental or Sept. 2,
2025.
physical examinations, if any, under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 35:
Target is an American retail corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lUrX5F at no extra
charge.[CC]
TARGET CORPORATION: Merritt Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Clayton T. Merritt, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No.
2422-CC11221 was removed from the Circuit Court for the City of St.
Louis, State of Missouri, to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, on Oct. 30, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 4:24-cv-01458.
The Plaintiff alleges that Target "maintains a pattern and practice
of using deceptive photographs on the shelf and bookcase products"
that are "sold in its stores and online across the U.S." (the
alleged "Products") to allegedly "mislead consumers into believing
the Products are capable of fulfilling functions that, in fact,
they cannot fulfill, thus inducing consumers to purchase the
Products and overpay for them."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin S. McIntosh
SWMW LAW, LLC
701 Market St., Ste. 1000
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 480-5180
Email: ben.mcintosh@swmwlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard B. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
Daniel Carter, Esq.
LEWIS RICE LLC
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 444-7600
Facsimile: (314) 612-2042
Email: rwalsh@lewisrice.com
epivin@lewisrice.com
dcarter@lewisrice.com
TEN OAKS MANAGEMENT: Munro Sues Over Layoffs Without Prior Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MUNRO and CHARLES MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TEN OAKS MANAGEMENT, LLC
and TOG FAS HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01041 (D.
Del., September 17, 2024) is a class action for the recovery by
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees of the
Defendants, as a single employer, of damages in the amount of 60
days' pay and Employee Retirement Income Security Act benefits by
reason of Defendants' violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
Although the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated employees
were nominally employed by US Logistics Solutions Inc., pursuant to
the WARN Act's single employer rule, Ten Oaks Management LLC and
TOG FAS Holdings LLC were also the Plaintiffs' and the other
similarly situated employees "Employer" until they were terminated
as part of, or as a result of a mass layoff or mass layoffs and/or
a plant closing ordered by Defendants on June 20, 2024 and
thereafter.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the WARN Act by
failing to give the Plaintiffs and the other similarly situated
employees of the Defendants at least 60 days' advance written
notice of termination, as required by the WARN Act.
Ten Oaks Management, LLC is a family office exclusively focused on
investing in corporate divestitures.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Huggett, Esq.
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 888-1112
Facsimile: (302) 888-1119
- and -
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
Johnathan Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
100 Church Street, 8th Fl
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 581-5005
Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
- and -
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
182 St. Francis Street Suite 103
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433-8100
Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
TENNESSEE HOUSING: Robbins Sues Over Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Christian Robbins; Greg Noyes; Eva Noyes; and Shana Smith, on
behalf of themselves and a Class of others who were similarly
discriminated v. TENNESSEE HOUSING DEVLEOPMENT AGENCY (THDA); RALPH
PERREY, in his official capacity as Executive Director of THDA;
LINDSAY HALL, in her official capacity as Chief Operating Officer
of Single Family Programs at THDA; RICK NEAL, in his official
capacity as Chair of THDA's Board of Directors; STEPHEN DIXON, in
his official capacity as Vice Chair of THDA's Board of Directors;
JACKY AKHARI, in her official capacity as a member of THDA's Board
of Directors; JIM BRYSON, in his official capacity as a member of
THDA's Board of Directors; TRE HARGETT, in his official capacity as
a member of THDA's Board of Directors; MAEGHAN JONES, in her
official capacity as member of THDA's Board of Directors; DAVID
LILLARD, in his official capacity as a member of THDA's Board of
Directors; MICHAEL A. MILLER, in his official capacity as a member
of THDA's Board of Directors; ROB MITCHELL, in his official
capacity as a member of THDA's Board of Directors; JASON E.
MUMPOWER, in his official capacity as a member of THDA's Board of
Directors; CHRISTINE RHEA, in her official capacity as a member of
THDA's Board of Directors; EVA ROMERO, in her official capacity as
a member of THDA's Board of Directors; and DAN SPRINGER, in his
official capacity as a member of THDA's Board of Directors, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01229-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn., Oct. 25, 2024), is brought
against the following Defendants, who are responsible for carrying
out an unconstitutional, race based social agenda.
THDA developed, marketed, and administered its Tennessee Homeowner
Assistance Fund program on the basis of race. THDA discriminated
and continues to discriminate in the provision of COVID-19 relief
funds, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
THDA has systematically discriminated and continues to discriminate
against white homeowners when providing COVID-19 relief. As part of
its Tennessee Homeowner Assistance Fund program, THDA has
prioritized "socially disadvantaged individuals" in everything from
the development and marketing of its program to approving
applications. THDA impermissibly identified "socially disadvantaged
individuals" based on their race.
In designing, marketing, and administering its Tennessee Homeowner
Assistance Fund program, THDA explicitly defined social
disadvantage based on identification "as a minority race or
ethnicity." As a result of THDA's racial discrimination, white
homeowners (including Plaintiffs) who struggled with the economic
consequences of the COVID 19 pandemic lost out on financial
assistance they needed to pay their mortgages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are residents of Tennessee.
Tennessee Housing Development Agency (THDA) is "a body, politic and
corporate" and "political subdivision and instrumentality of the
state."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
200 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (512) 693-8350
Email: jon@lkcfirm.com
- and -
William T. Thompson, Esq.
Matthew H. Frederick, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 693-8350
Email: will@lkcfirm.com
matt@lkcfirm.com
- and -
Jared B. Magnuson, Esq.
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP
3280 Peachtree Road NE
Atlanta, GA 30305
Phone: (512) 693-8350
Email: jared@lkcfirm.com
- and -
Mark M. Rothrock, Esq.
LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP
8513 Caldbeck Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: (336) 416-3326
Email: mark@lkcfirm.com
TFORCE LOGISTICS: Richardson Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Richardson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TFORCE LOGISTICS EAST, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-10069
(D.N.J., Oct. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for
violations of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") and the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") as a result of the Defendant's
failure to pay proper compensations.
Each week, Defendant makes withholdings from the earnings of New
Jersey Drivers. These withholdings are itemized on weekly
settlement statements showing their weekly compensation which
include, inter alia, withholdings for insurance and use of
Defendant's scanners. Such withholdings average approximately
$75.00 each week.
The Plaintiff estimates that he was subject to approximately
$3,900.00 of withholdings during his time working for Defendant.
The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week for
Defendant. Specifically, he estimates that during a typical week he
worked approximately 45-60 hours. The Defendant does not pay New
Jersey Drivers any overtime premium compensation for hours worked
over forty in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a New Jersey Driver from
January 2023 until December 2023.
The Defendant is a transportation company that delivers goods
throughout New Jersey and the northeastern United States for its
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: (215) 884-2491
Email: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
TICKETMASTER LLC: McIntosh Suit Transferred to D. Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa McIntosh, Leigh Dundas, Michael Lawler,
Veronica Ryan, Jennifer Nitti, Mia Nitti, Sophia Nitti, Michael
Nitti, Carla Bartz, on behalf of themselves and all others who are
similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment,
Inc., Snowflake Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-07318 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Oct. 30,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00170-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ --
is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in
Beverly Hills, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Rolf Jensen, Esq.
JENSEN AND ASSOCIATES APC
18301 Von Karmen Ave. Ste 570
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (714) 662-5527
Fax: (714) 708-2321
Email: prj@jensenlawyers.com
TOTAL RENAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Due Sept. 30, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON SPENCER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. TOTAL
RENAL CARE INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01359-RSM (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered Rule 16(b) and Rule
23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion as
follows:
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion Sept. 30, 2025
for class certification:
Opposition to Motion to Certify Class: Oct. 30, 2025
a
Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class: Nov. 14, 2025
Hearing on Motion to Certify Class: To be set by the
Court after
briefing
completed
Total Renal offers kidney and renal dialysis, transplant, disease
management, and emergency care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ek0AvE at no extra
charge.[CC]
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES: Syed Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Toyota Motor Sales
U.S.A., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Abdul Syed, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor
Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-01963-KK-SP (C.D. Cal., Sept. 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. -- http://www.toyota.com/usa/-- is
the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the United States market.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy G Blood, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 338-1100
Fax: (619) 338-1101
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
- and -
Dylan T. Martin, Esq.
H. Clay Barnett, III, Esq.
J. Mitch Williams, Esq.
Trenton H. Mann, Esq.
W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS AND MILES PC
272 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Email: dylan.martin@beasleyallen.com
Clay.Barnett@Beasleyallen.com
mitch.williams@beasleyallen.com
trent.mann@beasleyallen.com
dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Alexandra Julia Kennedy-Breit, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING LLP
633 West Fifth Street Suite 1600
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 443-4355
Fax: (213) 443-4310
Email: akennedy-breit@kslaw.com
- and -
John P. Hooper, Esq.
KING AND SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 556-2220
Fax: (212) 556-2222
Email: jhooper@kslaw.com
TRADEZERO AMERICA: Lim Files Suit in D. Delaware
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tradezero America,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Sokankelly Lim, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Tradezero America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00687-ADC (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 25, 2024).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
TradeZero America -- https://tradezero.com/ -- is a New York based
online broker-dealer that offers retail investors commission-free
stock trading and direct market access to US stocks.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201
Wilmington, DE 19808
Phone: (302) 656-2500
Fax: (302) 656-9053
Email: rjk@chimicles.com
scotttucker@chimicles.com
TRAVIS COUNTY, TX: Must Submit Response to Class Cert by Nov. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKYLOR JOHNSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. TRAVIS
COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00386-DII (W.D. Tex.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Pitman entered an order that, on or before Nov. 12,
2024, the Defendant shall file either
(1) a response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class; or
(2) a status report on the parties' settlement discussions.
The Plaintiff filed his complaint in this putative class action on
April 10, 2024.
The same day, he also filed a motion to certify class. On June 28,
2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added
another putative class representative, Mitchell Barrington, and an
organizational plaintiff, VOCAL Texas. Alongside the amended
complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a supplement to their motion to
certify class.
After Defendant Travis County waived service, it filed two
unopposed motions for extensions of time to file its answer, which
the Court
granted.
In those motions, the Defendant mentioned that the extensions of
time would be beneficial to the parties' ongoing discussions
towards resolution.
On October 17, 2024, the Defendant then filed its answer to
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.
The Defendant has not yet, however, filed a response to the
Plaintiffs' pending motion to certify class.
Travis County is located in Central Texas.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=awQ00F at no extra
charge.[CC]
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Browne Sues Over Misleading Marketing
------------------------------------------------------
Damany Browne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07578-NJC-AYS
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024), is brought to remedy the deceptive and
misleading business practices of the Defendant with respect to the
manufacturing, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Frozen Waffle and
Pancake Products throughout the state of New York and throughout
the United States (hereinafter the "Products").
The Defendant has improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled
and marketed its Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff,
by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that
the Products are contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.
Listeria monocytogenes is responsible for causing the infection
Listeria. Foodborne listeriosis is recognized to be one of the most
dangerous and life-threatening foodborne diseases. High-risk groups
for Listeria include pregnant women, infants, elderly, and immune
compromised individuals, who have an elevated risk of developing
severe symptoms, including death (the mortality rate is 20%-30%),
making this bacterium a significant public health concern.
Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant
to sell products that are safe and free from known harmful
substances, including Listeria monocytogenes. The Plaintiff and
those similarly situated (hereinafter "Class Members") certainly
expect that the frozen food products they purchase will not
contain, or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that
cause severe disease and even be life threatening. Unfortunately
for consumers, like Plaintiff, the frozen food Products they
purchased contain Listeria monocytogenes.
The Defendant is using a marketing and advertising campaign that
omits from the packaging that the Products contain Listeria
monocytogenes. Knowing of the presence of Listeria monocytogenes is
material to reasonable consumers. The presence of Listeria
monocytogenes was solely within the possession of Defendant, and
consumers could only obtain such information by conducting by
sending the products off to a laboratory for extensive testing.
This omission leads a reasonable consumer to believe they are not
purchasing a product with a known bacterium when in fact they are
purchasing a product contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased and used Defendant's Products that possibly
contained Listeria monocytogenes.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells frozen
food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: (516) 873-9550
Email: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Phone: (212) 243-0500
Email: mreese@reesellp.com
cramirez@reesellp.com
- and -
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
405 E. 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (630) 796-0903
Email: rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313)303-3472
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 West Broadway St., Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 810-7047
Email: tkashima@milberg.com
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Rugg-Harrell Sues Over Contaminated Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Rugg-Harrell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10992
(N.D. Ill., Oct. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's
waffle products manufactured by Defendant with "Best by" dates as
far as September 2025, (collectively herein "the Products") which
were contaminated with the harmful bacteria Listeria
monocytogenes.
Unfortunately, the Products are unfit for their intended
consumption because they are contaminated with the harmful bacteria
Listeria monocytogenes. The Plaintiff became ill following
consumption of the Products. On October 18, 2024, Defendant made
the recall of the Products due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. This issue was allegedly discovered through routine
testing at the manufacturing facility.
The Products are formulated, designed, manufactured, advertised,
sold, and distributed by Defendant or its agents, to consumers,
including Plaintiff, across the United States and abroad. Each of
the products was manufactured by Defendant, distributed to other
corporations, and then sold to consumers across the United States.
Through marketing and sale, Defendant represented that the Products
are safe for people, including pregnant women and their newborns,
adults aged 65 or older, and people with weakened immune systems.
The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason
to know, that the Products purchased were contaminated with
Listeria. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for
consumption and not contaminated by harmful bacteria, especially
those which can cause a serious infection. At the time of their
purchases, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff, and similarly
situated consumers, of the Product's risk of Listeriosis through
the product labels, instructions, ingredients list, other
packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of
state and federal laws.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products, while lacking the knowledge
that the Products could infect those who consumed the Products,
thus causing serious harm to those who use such products. Because
Plaintiff was injured by the Products and all consumers purchased
the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under
the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered
losses. As a result of the above losses, Plaintiff seeks damages
and equitable remedies, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased waffle products.
The Defendant specializes in the manufacture and marketing of
processed foods sold in retail food chains across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy T. Willey IV, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (843) 614-8888
Email: roy.willey@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
TRUIST BANK: Class Cert. Bid in Troung Amended to June 5, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN TRUONG, v. TRUIST
BANK, Case No. 3:23-cv-00079-MOC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
David Keesler entered an order granting the joint mediation report
and motion to extend amended scheduling order:
-- Supplemental mediation report: Feb. 10, 2025
-- Plaintiff's expert reports: March 10, 2025
-- Defendant's expert reports: April 10, 2025
-- Discovery completion: May 23, 2025
-- Class certification motion: June 5, 2025
-- Dispositive motions: Aug. 21, 2025
-- Trial date: Dec. 15, 2025
Truist offers saving and current account, investment and financial,
and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9PbVo2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUIST BANK: Misappropriated Funds From Investors, Eason Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EASON, EASON HERITAGE LLC, CHRISTOPHER EASON, HEATHER EASON,
HEATHER ELIZABETH DESIGNS, LLC d/b/a Z&CO DESIGN GROUP, and PARAGON
DESIGNER SERVICES, LLC, Plaintiffs v. TRUIST BANK, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-04155-MHC (N.D. Ga., September 16, 2024) is an action
against Truist for aiding and abetting a massive Ponzi scheme
orchestrated by Russell Todd Burkhalter through his company Drive
Planning LLC.
According to the complaint, using uniform marketing materials and
investor agreements, Burkhalter and Drive Planning misrepresented
to investors that they would use investor funds to make bridge
loans to and/or enter into joint ventures with property developers.
Burkhalter and Drive Planning guaranteed investors that they would
receive high returns every three months and that the investments
were secured by real property.
In reality, Burkhalter and Drive Planning used accounts at Truist
to operate a classic Ponzi scheme. They paid returns to Plaintiffs
and other investors using new investor money, raising more than
$300 million from more than 2,000 investors before the Securities
and Exchange Commission filed an action and obtained temporary
restraining orders freezing the assets of Burkhalter, Drive
Planning and others. With its goal to maximize assets held, account
and transfer-related revenue and compensation, Truist and its
employees actively accommodated Drive Planning's pattern of misuse
and misappropriation and went well beyond providing ordinary
banking services, says the suit.
Truist Bank is a state-chartered bank formed in North Carolina,
with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason R. Doss, Esq.
THE DOSS FIRM LLC
1827 Powers Ferry Road Southeast, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (770) 578-1314
Facsimile: (770) 578-1302
E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
Victoria J. Wilson, Esq.
Peter J. Sitaras, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER +
GROSSMAN LLP
Miami Tower
100 Southeast Second Street, 36th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 403-8788
Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
E-mail: jcs@lklsg.com
jk@lklsg.com
vjw@lklsg.com
pjs@lklsg.com
TYSON FOODS: Pearson Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH PEARSON, for herself
and other similarly situated individuals, v. TYSON FOODS, INC.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-01080-BSM (E.D. Ark.), the Court entered an order
denying the motion for class certification.
Ms. Pearson's motion for class certification is denied because she
has not met the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(a) and 23(b)(3).
Finally, Pearson's request for an evidentiary hearing is denied.
Despite the opportunity to factually support her claim, she has
merely relied on the exhibits attached to her complaint.
Ms. Pearson is suing Tyson Foods for violating Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (ACRA)
and is seeking to certify a class of employees whose religious
beliefs may not have been accommodated when Tyson implemented its
COVID-19 vaccination policy.
Ms. Pearson applied for a religious exemption on August 18, 2021,
which was granted. After considering Pearson's job duties, however,
Tyson offered to place Pearson on LOA+, and she accepted.
Ms. Pearson is seeking to certify a class of current and former
Tyson employees who worked remotely before Tyson instituted its
vaccination requirement, who requested a religious accommodation to
continue working remotely, and who were placed on an extended
unpaid leave of absence.
Tyson is an American multinational corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6TvMi at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Standing Order Entered in Ramirez−Fort
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIGDALIA K.
RAMIREZ−FORT, v. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09103-FLA-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando
Aenlle-Rocha entered a standing order as follows:
-- Service of the Complaint
The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant
to
Local Rule 5-3.1.
-- Removed Actions
All documents filed in state court, including documents
appended
to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in
this
court as a supplement to the notice of removal.
-- Discovery Matters Referred to United States Magistrate Judge
All discovery matters are hereby referred to the assigned
Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes.
-- Motions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12
Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties
confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially
for
perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that
can
be corrected by amendment.
University of California is a public land-grant research university
system in the U.S. state of California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mIoKAH at no extra
charge.[CC]
VALVE CORP: Monopolizes PC Game Distribution Market, Drake Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON DRAKE and ERIC SAAVEDRA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VALVE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01743 (W.D. Wash., October 24, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's violations of the Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
Washington State Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, because of Valve's dominant position,
publishers are compelled to list their games on the Steam Store to
reach a broad audience. This gives Valve significant leverage,
allowing it to charge a 30% commission on most games sold on Steam,
despite its limited role as an intermediary. With its dominant
market share in PC Game Distribution, Valve has quickly become the
only viable option for payment processing of in-game transactions.
By leveraging its Platform Most Favored Nation clause and through
the use of anticompetitive tactics, Valve has extended its monopoly
power to two markets, says the suit.
This lawsuit is filed by Plaintiffs representing themselves and a
proposed class of consumers aiming to address Valve's abuse of its
market power and seeking to challenge Valve's efforts to restrain
trade, monopolize, and maintain its monopoly in PC game
distribution and in-game payment processing.
Valve Corp. operates the Steam Store through which it distributes
PC games online.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
999 N. Northlake Way, Suite 215
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 802-1272
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
David Ko, Esq.
Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
E-mail: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
dko@kellerrohrback.com
rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Candice J. Enders, Esq.
Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
Julia McGrath, Esq.
Najah A. Jacobs, Esq.
Jeremy Gradwohl, Esq.
Sarah Zimmerman, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
cenders@bm.net
zcaplan@bm.net
jmcgrath@bm.net
njacobs@bm.net
jgradwohl@bm.net
szimmerman@bm.net
VGV HOLDING: Residents Sue Over Illegal Gambling and Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Bentham, writing for CDC Gaming, reports that VGV Holding Ltd,
the company behind sweepstakes casinos like Chumba Casino and
Sweepstakes Casino, has been hit with a class action suit from
Connecticut residents who claim they were defrauded.
The class action comes just a month after state regulators ordered
the operator to shut down operations in the state.
According to a report from Law360, a lawsuit filed in the
Connecticut state court on Wednesday, October 30, claimed: "VGW's
audited financials shows VGW spent hundreds of millions of dollars
advertising VGW's platforms and, in such advertisements,
deceptively advertise their own legality and thus VGW has defrauded
and manipulated the plaintiff into engaging in illegal gambling and
losing money."
For example, lead plaintiff Stephanie Cox claimed she spent $300
because VGW sites engaged in practices banned by legal casinos. The
suit expressly referred to the fact that players can get coins that
are eligible to be exchanged for cash, but strict limits on this,
such as only allowing one request a day, long approval requests for
withdrawals and requiring a high exchange threshold, made it
impossible for players to benefit.
Sweepstakes are a hot topic of debate in the United States at the
moment. A five-part education series run by members of the Indian
Gaming Association highlighted how the industry is adapting to
these new operators. American Gaming Association Senior Vice
President for Government Relations Chris Cylke said the legal
status of sweepstakes was "murky" in one of these educational
videos. [GN]
VISA INC: NDA Aesthetics Sues Over Monopoly of Debit Network Market
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NDA AESTHETICS, LLC and WARREN IMPORTS, LLC d/b/a SUBARU WORLD OF
HACKETTSTOWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. VISA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08269 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the
Sherman Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and various
state laws.
The case arises from Visa's alleged anticompetitive conduct in the
markets for general purpose debit network services and
card-not-present debit network services in the United States.
According to the complaint, Visa has unlawfully entrenched its
monopoly by using a multi-faceted exclusionary strategy to stifle
competition and innovation in the United States debit market,
resulting in enormous financial harms to merchants like the
Plaintiffs. As a result of Visa's monopoly, Visa imposes
supracompetitive fees on merchants through their acquiring banks,
who process payments for merchants as their agents, pay Visa a fee
for each transaction on its network as well as additional fees and
costs, and then charge those fees through to merchants. These fees
represent a substantial cost burden that merchants are obligated to
bear when accepting debit card payments, says the suit.
NDA Aesthetics, LLC is a limited liability company, with its
principal place of business in Moorestown, New Jersey.
Warren Imports, LLC, doing business as Subaru World of
Hackettstown, is a Subaru dealer with its principal place of
business in Hackettstown, New Jersey.
Visa Inc. is a global payments company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott Martin, Esq.
Daniel P. Weick, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 357-1100
Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
Email: smartin@hausfeld.com
dweick@hausfeld.com
- and -
Brian A. Ratner, Esq.
Jane Shin, Esq.
Camila Ringeling, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street, NW, Suite 300
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
Email: bratner@hausfeld.com
jshin@hausfeld.com
cringeling@hausfeld.com
- and -
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 633-4980
Email: clebsock@hausfeld.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
VISA INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Visa Inc. (NYSE: V) resulting from allegations that
Visa may have issued materially misleading business information to
the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Visa securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29131 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On September 24, 2024, during market hours, the
United States Department of Justice issued a release entitled
"Justice Department Sues Visa for Monopolizing Debit Markets." In
this release, the DOJ announced it had "filed a civil antitrust
lawsuit against Visa for monopolization and other unlawful conduct
in debit network markets[.]" The release further stated the
"complaint alleges that Visa illegally maintains a monopoly over
debit network markets by using its dominance to thwart the growth
of its existing competitors and prevent others from developing new
and innovative alternatives."
The release quoted Attorney General Merrick Garland as stating
"[w]e allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract
fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive
market[.] Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers,
either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a
result, Visa's unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one
thing – but the price of nearly everything."
On this news, Visa's stock fell 5.4% on September 24, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: case@rosenlegal.com [GN]
VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Seeks Class Settlement Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA HENDERSON, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
VISION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., Case No.
4:20-cv-12649-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
(A) preliminarily approving the class settlement
(B) certifying two classes for purposes of settlement;
(C) appointing the Named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and
Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel;
(D) approving the proposed class notices, Exhibit 2, and
procedures
in Section 4 of the settlement agreement and directing that
notice of the proposed class settlement be made to the class
members in accordance with those procedures; and
(E) scheduling a fairness hearing at least 120 days after the
Court's preliminary approval of the class settlement.
The parties propose certification of two settlement classes. Class
Members are defined as
"All persons who entered into a LOP in the state of Michigan
from
Jan. 1, 2013, through Dec. 31, 2019, that was facilitated by,
arranged by, made by, assigned to, or in which the subject
property
was owned at any time by any of the Defendants in the
Litigation."
The first class is the LOP Occupant Class and is defined as all
Class Members, or their heirs, who entered into an LOP in the State
of Michigan that has been assigned to or originated from DSV or the
FTE Defendants and who are in possession or control of property
that is subject to such LOP as of the Settlement Effective Date,
and which property is an Occupied Property.
For the avoidance of doubt, LOP Occupants does not include any
person who had an LOP and exercised the purchase option, whether
through seller financing, third party financing, or cash.
The second class is the Non-Occupant Class Members and is defined
as all Class Members who are not LOP Occupant Class Members.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9ZBgzV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shennan Kavanagh, Esq.
Sarah B. Mancini, Esq.
NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW
CENTER
7 Winthrop Square
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 542-8010
E-mail: skavanagh@nclc.org
smancini@nclc.org
- and -
Lorray S.C. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer A. Holmes, Esq.
MICHIGAN POVERTY LAW
PROGRAM
15 South Washington Street, Suite 202
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Telephone: (734) 998-6100 ext. 613
Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
E-mail: lorrayb@mplp.org
- and -
Jennifer A. Holmes, Esq.
Pilar C. Whitaker, Esq.
Alexandra Sloane Thompson, Esq.
Tiffani Burgess, Esq.
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
700 14th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 682-1300
E-mail: jholmes@naacpldf.org
pwhitaker@naacpldf.org
athompson@naacpldf.org
tburgess@naacpldf.org
- and -
Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, Esq.
Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FUND OF MICHIGAN
2966 Woodward Avenue
Detroit, MI 48201
Telephone: (313) 578-6800
E-mail: bkitaba@aclumich.org
dkorobkin@aclumich.org
VOIP-PAL.COM INC: Files for Pretrial Consolidation of Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Finance reports that VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (OTCQB: VPLM)
announced that it has filed a Motion for Consolidation in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The
motion seeks to consolidate VoIP-Pal's ongoing antitrust complaint
(Case No. 24-cv-03051) with a related class action case (Case No.
1:24-cv-03054-RBW) for pretrial proceedings, including discovery
and other preparatory phases. This motion seeks consolidation
strictly for pretrial proceedings, including discovery and motion
practice, while maintaining each case's distinct identity and
ensuring that the trials themselves will proceed separately.
This consolidation request is based on 35 shared legal and factual
commonalities between the two cases, spanning issues like
monopolistic practices, discriminatory bundling of services, and
significant consumer harm -- all alleged anti-competitive behaviors
by major telecom companies, including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and
Deutsche Telekom. Typically, federal consolidation is granted on
motions citing just one or two overlapping questions; here,
VoIP-Pal's substantial list supports the case for unified pretrial
proceedings under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal, commented, "Our motion to consolidate
reflects our commitment to efficiency and effectiveness in
addressing critical issues collectively. These 35 shared points
provide a solid foundation for pretrial consolidation, and we are
optimistic about advancing both cases on behalf of consumers
affected by these monopolistic practices. We remain dedicated to
holding these telecom giants accountable and advocating for fair
competition and consumer choice."
By consolidating these cases for pretrial purposes, VoIP-Pal aims
to streamline litigation, reduce duplicative legal efforts, and
ensure consistent rulings. Both cases call for market reform and
consumer compensation, with the goal of addressing consumer harms
on a broader scale and promoting a fairer telecommunications
market.
The Motion for Consolidation along with the other recent filings
have been posted on the Company's website and can be accessed by
clicking the links below:
Motion for Consolidation
VoIP-Pal Antitrust Lawsuit
Class Action Antitrust Lawsuit
Additionally, a new article was published in CEOCFO Magazine over
the weekend. The article discusses some of the alleged
constitutional violations raised in the lawsuit that could
adversely affect small inventors, including companies like
VoIP-Pal.
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. ("VoIP-Pal") is a publicly traded corporation
(OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. The company owns a
portfolio of patents related to Voice-over-Internet Protocol
("VoIP") technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Forward-Looking Statements
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward-looking
statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to
allow potential investors to understand management's beliefs and
opinions with respect to the future, but patent litigation involves
various risks and uncertainties that could affect the company's
ability to monetize its patents. It is impossible to predict
specific outcomes of litigation.
Corporate Website: www.voip-palusa.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600 [GN]
WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
DataBreaches.Net reports that in July 2021, Chelan Douglas Health
District in Washington experienced a data breach. They disclosed
the breach to the public in March 2022, surprisingly patting
themselves on the back for completing their investigation in 6-7
months.
A number of media reports indicate that the breach reportedly
affected almost 109,000 patients, but the breach was reported to
HHS on March 15, 2022 as affecting the protected health information
(PHI) of 188,236 patients. The types of PHI included Social
Security numbers, dates of birth/death, financial account
information, medical information (treatment/diagnosis information,
medical record or patient number, and/or health insurance policy
information.
A potential class action lawsuit was filed in Chelan County
Superior Court by Sarah Nunley and Michelle Slater. They claimed
that they received a large number of spam phone calls and emails,
and Nunley further claimed her personal data was used to file for
an unauthorized business license and that her social security
number appeared on the dark web.
Their case was dismissed in February 2023 when Chelan County
Superior Court Judge Kristin Ferrera held that they had shown no
evidence of harm.
This past week, the dismissal was reversed by the State Court of
Appeals. As KPQ reported, the three-judge panel stated that the
Health District had a responsibility to protect the personal
information it stored, and the plaintiffs have a right to prove at
trial that they suffered damages. Of note:
The three-judge panel's Acting Chief Judge Tracy Staab wrote it was
the court's opinion that the Health District had knowledge its
clients information was vulnerable as early as 2020, and that it
also was aware that cybercriminals were attempting to compromise
its systems.
Staab further wrote that the Health District failed to increase its
security measures even after it was warned by the FBI about an
impending cyberattack in May, 2021.
Even when staff received a phishing email after they were warned of
an impending cyberattack, they reportedly still “did not improve
its security measures," the court wrote.
The case now goes back to Chelan County Superior Court.
A check of HHS's public breach tool indicates that HHS closed its
investigation of this incident with the following note:
The covered entity (CE), Chelan Douglas Health District, reported
that it experienced a cyber-attack that compromised the protected
health information (PHI) of 188,236 individuals. The PHI involved
included names, dates of birth, drivers' license numbers, Social
Security numbers, claims and financial information, diagnoses, and
other treatment information. The CE notified HHS, affected
individuals, the media, and provided substitute notice. In its
mitigation efforts, the CE implemented additional administrative
and technical safeguards to better protect its PHI.
Their note makes no mention of the Health District's risk
assessment or any failure to take other steps when warned by the
FBI of an impending attack, it seems. [GN]
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Waste Management Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-04838-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting leave to file a surreply
in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification solely
on the issue of price impact.
On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion and attached a
63-page (exclusive of exhibits) report from their expert witness,
Dr. Steven Feinstein.
The Plaintiffs have acknowledged that Defendants bear the burden of
proof on price impact. Under the Court's Order, this alone warrants
permitting Defendants to file a surreply on price impact.
Additionally, because the Plaintiffs waited until their Reply to
substantively address price impact, the Court should permit
Defendants to file a surreply on that issue. Indeed, courts in this
District and others routinely permit defendants to file surreplies
where class certification briefing involves price impact issues.
Defendants' request for a surreply is warranted and should be
granted. We have attached the proposed surreply and supporting
rebuttal report of Lucy P. Allen, which responds to the price
impact claims asserted in Steven P. Feinstein’s Rebuttal Report.
We appreciate the Court's consideration of this request and are
available for a conference to discuss this issue.
The Defendant is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and
environmental services company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 30, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jlhcIU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
James J. Beha II, Esq.
BAKER BOTTS LLP
Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-4498
Telephone: (212) 408-2510
Facsimile: (212) 259-2510
E-mail: jim.beha@bakerbotts.com
WHITEHORSE, YT: Bids to Dismiss Accessibility Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Hong, writing for CBC News, reports that the City of
Whitehorse is asking for a proposed class-action lawsuit over its
alleged failure to ensure sidewalks, parking stalls and transit
stops are accessible -- particularly in the winter -- to be tossed.
In a statement of defence filed to the Yukon Supreme Court on Oct.
28, the city argues, among other things, that the case doesn't
comply with territorial law, is an "abuse of process" and that
allegations that it hasn't complied with its own snow and ice
removal rules are baseless.
"In any event, the City owes no legal or other duty to any party to
enforce its bylaws or policies," the document says.
The defence comes in response to a statement of claim filed against
the city by two Whitehorse residents in September. Ramesh Ferris
and Eva Von Flotow, who both have mobility issues, allege that
their ability to get around and participate in society has been
seriously impeded by the city's actions or lack thereof,
particularly when it comes to snow and ice removal.
The pair allege the situation amounts to a violation of their
Charter rights and want the lawsuit to be certified as a
class-action on behalf of any Whitehorse residents who would have
qualified for an accessible parking permit as of Sept. 8, 2018.
That certification has not yet happened, nor have the allegations
been tested at trial.
In its statement of defence, however, the city argues that the
lawsuit should be dismissed because it didn't meet key timelines
set out in the territorial Municipal Act for taking "action"
against a municipality for poor road maintenance. The Municipal Act
states that a municipality's chief administrative officer must be
notified within 21 days of an incident and that the action must be
started within 12 months.
"The City is not aware of any material facts that demonstrate when
the causes of action pleaded herein arose and the claims are
time-barred," the document reads.
Proceedings an 'abuse of process,' city claims
The city also denies that it failed to enforce its own Snow and Ice
Control Policy and Maintenance Bylaw, noting that it operates with
a "limited snow removal budget" and resources, and that the
policy's priorities and standards are meant "to provide the
greatest benefit to the majority of the travelling public."
"At all material times, the City properly administered the Snow and
Ice Policy to the benefit of the majority of the travelling public,
in accordance with the policy itself and in a manner that complies
with its obligations, statutory or otherwise," the statement of
defence says.
The city also argues that the barrier-free design requirements laid
out under the National Building Code don't apply to Whitehorse's
accessible parking spots, and that if they did, there would be no
violation of them.
"Among other things, the Barrier-Free Requirements do not set out
any obligations with respect to snow removal," the statement of
defence says, responding to allegations that accessible parking
spots are often rendered unusable in the winter.
The statement of defence denies that anyone's Charter rights have
been violated, but argues that if any violations did occur, they
were "minimally impairing" and "reasonably justifiable."
"As these claims are effectively claims for discrimination, the
City says that this Court is not the appropriate forum for the
Plaintiffs' claims and that this proceeding is an abuse of
process," the statement of defence adds.
The city is asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed and for the
plaintiffs to pay its legal fees. [GN]
WILLIAMS RUSH: Cohen Files FDCPA Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Williams Rush & Associates
LLC. The case is styled as James Cohen, individually, and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Williams Rush & Associates, LLC,
Case No. 8:24-cv-02187-KKM-CPT (M.D. Fla., September 16, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle.
Williams Rush & Associates LLC is a debt collection agency in
Dallas, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
jibrael@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Winnebago Industries, Inc. (NYSE: WGO) resulting
from allegations that Winnebago may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Winnebago securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29071 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On September 23, 2024, during market hours,
Hunterbrook Media published an article called "'Grand Deception'-
Winnebago Muzzles Outcry Over Major Problem That Owners Say Makes
RVs Dangerous, Untowable, Worthless." In this article, Hunterbrook
said Winnebago's "best-selling Grand Design RVs" appear to be
"experiencing frame failure, potentially affecting thousands of
units sold for more than a billion dollars. This defect has led to
costly damage and potential safety hazards, and rendered some RVs
unroadworthy." Further, the article stated "Winnebago has used
NDAs, buybacks, and online censorship to silence complaints about
frame failure[.]"
On this news, Winnebago's stock fell 2.28% on September 23, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
WM TECHNOLOGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in WM Technology, Inc.
("WM Technology, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MAPS) of a class
action securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
WM Technology, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by
alleged securities fraud between May 25, 2021 and September 24,
2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be
contacted by a member of our team:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/wm-technology-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=110337&wire=3
MAPS investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: defendants acted with
scienter in that they knew that the public documents and statements
issued or disseminated in the name of the Company were materially
false and misleading; knew that such statements or documents would
be issued or disseminated to the investing public; and knowingly
and substantially participated, or acquiesced in the issuance or
dissemination of such statements or documents as primary violations
of the securities laws. These defendants by virtue of their receipt
of information reflecting the true facts of the Company, their
control over, and/or receipt and/or modification of the Company’s
allegedly materially misleading statements, and/or their
associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential
proprietary information concerning the Company, participated in the
fraudulent scheme alleged herein.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in WM Technology, Inc. during
the relevant time frame, you have until December 16, 2024 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services’ Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
YEEZY APPAREL: Settles Former Employee Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Bras Nevares, writing for Hot News Hip Hop, reports that
over the past few years, Kanye West received various lawsuits about
Yeezy, with some being specifically about how he allegedly
compensated employees of his brand. While they resulted in a
variety of different outcomes, we have a new update on a
long-running class action suit over allegedly unpaid wages.
Moreover, according to Baller Alert, Ye and Yeezy settled for
$625,000 with former employees. According to purported court
documents reportedly obtained by In Touch, these funds will
contribute to the former workers that this lawsuit represents,
their legal fees, and a reserved slice of the pie should any other
future accusations or legal claims emerge.
For those unaware, Taliah Leslie and Shelby Grochowski filed this
lawsuit in 2021. In fact, reports had emerged last year that Leslie
and Kanye West reached a settlement in a lawsuit, so it seems like
this refers more to the class action involvement of more employees.
The basic claims involve allegations of labor code violations, lack
of overtime wages and meal breaks, lack of off-the-clock work
compensation, and required travel to Paris, Wyoming, and more
without proper reimbursement or payment.
The plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit against Kanye West, who
faces other serious allegations such as sexual assault, reportedly
joined the Yeezy team in 2019. Taliah Leslie was an assistant
designer and Shelby Grochowski was an assistant pattern-maker.
"Defendant [failed] to compensate all overtime hours worked when
Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees worked over eight hours in one
day or forty hours in one week," the lawsuit alleged, also claiming
that employees "worked in excess of five (5) and/or ten (10) hours
a day without being provided at least half-hour meal periods." Per
the suit, the Chicago artist's personal views impacted these
workplace conditions, such as a ban on eating inside the offices.
While Kanye West and Yeezy did reportedly settle for $625K here,
they "deny any liability or wrongdoing" according to reported court
documents. Specifically, they alleged that they acted in full
compliance with the California Labor Code and other provisions.
Ye's wife Bianca Censori reportedly signed the agreement on behalf
of her husband and the company. This is far from the only legal
obstacle in his path, although it seems like this instance came to
a close. [GN]
ZOCDOC INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Espinal Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZOCDOC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08276 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 30, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://zocdoc.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Zocdoc, Inc. is a New York City-based company offering an online
service that allows people to find and book in-person or
telemedicine appointments for medical or dental care. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
[*] Mass. Court Rejects Use of Wiretap Statute in Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Ewing LLP, in an article with JDSupra, reports that over the
past decade, businesses and institutions with public-facing
websites have increasingly turned to internet tracking
technologies, such as cookies, pixels, and session replay tools, to
optimize their websites and offer website visitors a more efficient
and personalized experience, as well as monetize the data about
website visits. With the rise of internet tracking came a
nationwide surge in data privacy class action lawsuits. Initially,
the class actions were based on common-law or statutory invasion of
privacy claims, but courts frequently dismissed cases unless
plaintiffs could demonstrate that the data collection and
disclosure involved personally identifiable information (PII) or
protected health information (PHI).
What You Need to Know:
-- The SJC has limited the use of the Massachusetts Wiretap
Statute in data privacy class-action lawsuits to only conduct where
interpersonal communications or messages are secretly intercepted,
as opposed to conduct that tracks website visits and interactions
between the visitor and the website.
-- Although the SJC held that the Wiretap Statute did not
encompass the conduct at issue, it expressed serious concerns
raised by the use of website tracking technologies and emphasized
that such conduct "may indeed violate various other statutes and
give rise to common-law causes of action."
-- Businesses, colleges, and other institutions, particularly
HIPAA-covered entities, should review their data privacy policies,
procedures, and notices to limit the risk of litigation.
In response, plaintiff-side attorneys began filing federal class
actions based on dual-consent wiretap statutes, claiming that
website owners and the companies that provide tracking technologies
were secretly "intercepting communications" related to users'
interactions -- such as mouse movements, clicks, and keystrokes --
entitling them to statutory damages and attorney's fees. However,
following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in TransUnion v. Ramirez,
141 S. Ct. 2190, 2205 (2021), which determined that mere statutory
violations do not confer Article III standing, federal courts began
dismissing these cases unless plaintiffs could demonstrate actual
injury separate and apart from the statutory violation.
Consequently, plaintiffs pivoted their privacy claims under wiretap
statutes to state courts. In 2023, this shift was highlighted in a
pair of consolidated cases in Massachusetts Superior Court
involving plaintiff Kathleen Vita's class-action lawsuit against
New England Baptist Hospital and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center. Ms. Vita alleged that the hospitals violated the 1968
Massachusetts wiretap statute, M.G.L. c. 272, Sec. 99, by
intercepting users' online interactions with and searches on the
hospitals' public websites through the use of pixels, cookies, and
other internet tracking devices.
Ms. Vita alleged that she, and those similarly situated, used the
websites to obtain information about doctors, symptoms, conditions,
and medical procedures, and to access her medical records. As part
of that interaction, she alleged that the hospitals captured her IP
addresses, web browsing history, the contents of searches made on
the website, and various selections made when accessing the
websites using third-party tracking software which then disclosed
the data to vendors. Ms. Vita did not allege that any messages to
doctors or medical staff had been captured, nor did she allege that
any PHI had been captured by third parties.
On October 31, 2023, Justice Hélène Kazanjian of the Superior
Court's Business Litigation Session denied the hospitals' motions
to dismiss, holding that a violation of the statute, alone,
constitutes injury sufficient to confer standing. At the same time,
she certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) the
novel question of whether the Massachusetts wiretap statute applies
to various internet tracking practices. The SJC accepted the case
for direct appellate review.
On October 24, 2024, the SJC issued a 47-page decision in Vita v.
New England Baptist Hosp., -- Mass. - - (2024), reversing the lower
court's denial of the hospitals' motion to dismiss. As an initial
matter, the SJC agreed with Justice Kazanjian that the plaintiffs
had standing because the wiretap statute allows any "aggrieved
person" whose communications are intercepted to pursue a private
cause of action, even without showing actual damages. However, the
majority ultimately ruled that the wiretap statute does not extend
to the alleged internet tracking unless personal messages or
conversations are secretly intercepted.
The thrust of the majority's holding is rooted in the
interpretation of the term "communication," which they held does
not extend to web browsing activities because the wiretap act was
enacted to criminalize the secret interception of "person-to-person
conversations and messaging," particularly private ones. As a
result, an individual's web browsing is not a "communication"
because the interaction is person-to-website, as opposed to
person-to-person. Moreover, the majority found nothing in the text
of the statute which makes it unambiguously clear that the
legislature intended to "reach so far as to criminalize the secret
recording of such web browsing activity."
While the SJC held that the Wiretap Statute did not encompass the
conduct at issue in Vita, it expressed serious concerns raised by
the hospitals' alleged conduct, which it emphasized "may indeed
violate various other statutes and give rise to common-law causes
of action more specifically directed at the improper handling of .
. . . confidential medical information." [GN]
*********
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 ***