/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241113.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 13, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 228
Headlines
3468 MAIN HIGHWAY: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Notify Data Breach Victims, Suit Says
AIRPROS USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McAffee Alleges
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
ATIRA PROPERTY: BC Supreme Court Certifies Class Action Lawsuit
AURORA CANNABIS: Class Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 28, 2025
AVIS RENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lopez Suit Alleges
BARTLESVILLE, OK: Banks Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
BCPSI ENTERPRISES: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Appeals Summary Judgment to 5th Cir.
BMW FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in ORG Suit
BMW FINANCIAL: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Suit v. ORG
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Choh Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cornish-Adebiyi Appeals Case Dismissal
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Judge Approves $795,000 Class Settlement
CHARLOTTE, NC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Durham Suit
CLAY-PLATTE FAMILY: Highfill Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Pay Sales Coordinators' OT Wages Under FLSA
DEEP ROOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Suit Alleges
DESTINATION XL: Faces Esquivel Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
DEVILS LETTUCE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Saunders Says
DISH WIRELESS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims
DMHT LLC: Durham Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
EGGLAND'S BEST: Reimer Sues Over Cage Free Eggs' Deceptive Ads
ELEMENTAL LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Over 2023 Cyber-Attack
ELEMETAL LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hinesley Says
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 31
FLYNNSTONED CORP: Robles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
FORGE REALTY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
FPG LABS: Klosowski Sues Over False Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' "Shift to Park" Issue
GOODRX INC: Faces Community Suit Over Price-Fixing Agreement
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Braking Systems
IKEA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
INTEL CORP: Vanvalkenburgh Sues Over Defective Desktop Processors
INTEL CORP: Vanvalkenburgh Suit Seeks Class-Action Status
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, King Says
LILIUM NV: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
LIVE NATION: Appeals Court Greenlights Ticket Pricing Class Suit
LL'S MAGNETIC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says
LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Underwriters' OT Wages, Huff Says
META PLATFORMS: Court Scrutinizes Risk Disclosures in Fraud Suit
MICHIGAN: Delta County Won't Join Class Action Over Energy Projects
MILO'S POULTRY: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
MODERN FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
MOTHER'S BOUTIQUE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Reid Claims
MYNARIC AG: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 30
NINE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sledz Alleges
NUVISION CREDIT: Faces Class Action for Denying Loans to Immigrants
OUTBRAIN INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Teads S.A.
PACS GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Cho Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Viewing Info to FB, Cho Alleges
PARK COMMUNITY CREDIT: Hester Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
PERSONA IDENTITIES: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Personal Info Use
PITA WAY AUBURN: Miller Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages
PROFESSIONAL CREDIT: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Class Action for Denying Collision Coverage
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Halter Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
RALEY'S: Removes Smith Suit from State Court to E.D. Calif.
RENTDEBT AUTOMATED: Green Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
REPUBLIC CLOTHING: Bunting Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Faces Gomez RICO Suit Over Interest Rates
ROOMPLACE FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
SAINT XAVIER: Bowes Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
SAVE AMERICAN EDUCATION: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
SHOP UNTITLED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Suit Says
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Proposes to Settle Class Action Suit for $31.9MM
SOUTHERN TIRE: Removes Nisbet Suit to N.D. Calif.
SPRINGFIELD PIE: Gerhardson Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
STATE OF MIND: Turner Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
STRATAS FOODS: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
STRIDE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
STUCKMAN TREE: Ferrera Seeks Laborer's Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Holguin Files Suit in D. Colorado
T-MOBILE US INC: Zajonc Suit Removed to N.D. California
TARGET CORPORATION: O'Dea Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
TIDES.NETWORK INC: Stapleton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
TOP TIER SOLAR: Spratley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Tacoma Transmission Defect
TOYOTA MOTORS: Owners Can Appeal Compensation Case, High Court Says
TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Says
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATION: Mitchell Sues Over Resveratrol's False Ads
U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Alleges
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: $375-M Antitrust Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Deceptive Pricing Scheme Class Action Suit
UNDERSTANDING NEEDED: Brooks Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
UNITED NATURAL: Suppliers Sue Over Improper Discounts Payments
UNITED STATES: Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
UNITED STATES: Veterans Sues Over Misclassification of Illnesses
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security
UPFIELD US INC: Burgle Suit Removed to N.D. California
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Minor Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
VAZA CONSTRUCTION: Zurita Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
VILLAGE PRACTICE: Anisimova Files Suit in E.D. New York
VISTA OUTDOOR: M&S Probes Proposed Merger With Czechoslovak Group
WALGREENS CO: Settles Class Suit Over Generic Drug Overcharges
WARNER BROS: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Raheel Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
WELL BRED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Suit Says
ZEBRA STRATEGIES: Gross Files Suit in S.D. New York
*********
3468 MAIN HIGHWAY: Longhini Sues Over Discriminative Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Longhini, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. 3468 MAIN HIGHWAY, LLC, and COMMODORE, INC. d/b/a
GREENSTREET CAFE, Case No. 1:24-cv-24387-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7,
2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the
commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead-time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property, and the business
located within the Commercial Property and Restaurant Property to
be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered
architectural barriers at the Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property and
wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property, Restaurant
Property, and businesses located within the Commercial Property.
The barriers to access at the Commercial Property and businesses
located within the Commercial Property have each denied or
diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property,
Restaurant Property, and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
3468 MAIN HIGHWAY, LLC, owned and operated the commercial buildings
located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Fails to Notify Data Breach Victims, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Fitzgerald, writing for Westlaw Today, reports that New
York-based medical equipment supplier failed to notify patients
that their personally identifiable information and personal health
information may have been compromised until 15 months after the
incident, a proposed class-action lawsuit says.
Laurentz v. Advanced Recovery Equipment and Supplies LLC, No.
24-cv-7701, complaint filed (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2024).
Anamari Laurentz, who received durable medical equipment from
Advanced Recovery Equipment and Supplies LLC, filed a complaint
Nov. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging the company failed to protect customers' information
from a data breach that occurred between June 27 and July 28,
2023.
Advanced Recovery provides durable medical equipment and supplies
to customers in the New York area.
According to the suit, Advanced Recovery began sending letters to
customers whose PII and PHI were involved in the incident on Oct.
18, "over 15 months after the data breach."
The company said it had "immediately launched an investigation"
after discovering the data breach and that the investigation
concluded in September, the suit says.
The letter told customers that the exposed PII and PHI included
names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, driver's license
numbers, credit or debit card information, usernames and passwords
"associated with one or more online accounts," medical information,
and health insurance policy information.
Laurentz alleges Advanced Recovery failed to adequately follow
industry standards for data protection as well as Federal Trade
Commission guidelines and requirements under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1301.
She adds that because of the breach, she has suffered from
diminished value of her PII and PHI, loss of benefit of the
bargain, and lost time and opportunity costs spent mitigating the
loss of her personal information.
Represented by attorneys from Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, Laurentz seeks
to represent a nationwide class of those whose private information
was exposed in the breach. She alleges negligence, unjust
enrichment and other violations and seeks injunctive relief,
damages, attorney fees and costs. [GN]
AIRPROS USA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, McAffee Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
INDIA McAFFEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIRPROS USA, LLC., Defendant, Case No.
6:24-cv-02005 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 4, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff McAffee was employed by the Defendant as a dispatcher.
Air Pros, LLC provides building maintenance services. The Company
offers AC installation and HVAC repairing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Annie Blanc, Esq.
Anthony Hall, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
1560 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 600
Winter Park, FL 32789
Telephone: (407) 574-4999
Facsimile: (833) 813-7513
Email: ablanc@theleachfirm.com
ahall@theleachfirm.com
aarmstrong@theleachfirm.com
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edel Rodriguez v. American Residential Services, L.L.C., a/k/a
Rescue Rooter L.L.C., Case No. 8:24-cv-02562 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 2,
2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked six days per week from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM or
more, or a minimum average of 90 hours weekly. The Plaintiff did
not take bona fide lunchtime. The Plaintiff received weekly
payments for both regular and overtime hours. However, the
Defendant unlawfully deducted 30 minutes per day, totaling three
hours per week, for a lunch break, even though the Plaintiff was
unable to take a bona fide lunchtime break. The three hours
unlawfully deducted as lunchtime constitute three unpaid overtime
hour, the suit contends.
On April 24, 2024, the Defendant fired the Plaintiff after he had a
work-related accident. At the time of his termination, the
Defendant refused to pay the Plaintiff his last week of employment.
The Defendant also failed to pay the Plaintiff the promised sign-up
bonus. Therefore, the Defendant willfully failed to pay the
Plaintiff minimum wages in violation of the FLSA, added the suit.
This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff Edel Rodriguez as
a collective action to recover from Defendant regular and overtime
compensation, retaliatory and liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA on
behalf of the Plaintiff and all other current and former employees
similarly situated to Plaintiff ("the asserted class") and who
worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after
January 2023, without being adequately compensated.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a/c technician from
Jan. 05, 2023, to April 24, 2023.
American Residential is a company specializing in the installation,
repair, and maintenance of air conditioning equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ATIRA PROPERTY: BC Supreme Court Certifies Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has certified a
class-action lawsuit over the fire that killed two people at the
Winters Hotel in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside more than two years
ago.
A certification ruling by the court says lead plaintiff Jennifer
Hansma lived on the top floor of the hotel when it caught fire on
April 11, 2022, while the defendants include hotel operator Atira
Women's Resource Society, the City of Vancouver and others.
The court ruled Thursday, November 6, that the case meets the test
for certification, which doesn't involve assessing its merits but
whether the case can go ahead as a class proceeding.
The ruling says the case deals with a number of issues, including
claims of property damage, personal injuries, negligence and
wrongful death.
Justice Francesca Marzari's ruling says the case can go ahead as a
class action rather than individual cases by the hotel's residents
and visitors because "proposed class members largely represent a
segment of society with minimal social or economic power" who face
barriers to accessing justice.
The blaze killed residents Mary Garlow and Dennis Guay, and damaged
the hotel beyond repair.
The defendants in the case are Atira Property Management Inc.,
Atira Development Society, Atira Women's Resource Society, the City
of Vancouver (Fire and Rescue Services), Winters Residence Ltd.,
and the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Class Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 28, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
In re AURORA CANNABIS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 2:19-cv-20588-BRM-JBC
CLASS ACTION
This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED AURORA CANNABIS INC.
("AURORA") COMMON STOCK ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE BETWEEN
OCTOBER 23, 2018 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE ("SETTLEMENT
CLASS" OR "SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 28,
2025, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable James B. Clark, III at the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Frank R.
Lautenberg Post Office & U.S. Courthouse, 2 Federal Square, Newark,
New Jersey 07102, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")[1] for $8.05
million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice; (3) to award Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees
and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"),
which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to
reimburse Lead Plaintiffs for their time and expenses in connection
with their representation of the Settlement Class and, if so, in
what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.
There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct
the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Settlement Class Members to appear at the hearing
by telephone or videoconference, without further written notice to
the Settlement Class. In order to determine whether the date and
time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Settlement
Class Members must or may participate by telephone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court's docket and the website,
www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans
to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to that website.
Also, if the Court requires or allows Settlement Class Members to
participate in the Settlement Hearing by telephone or
videoconference, the access information will be posted to the
website, www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
IF YOU PURCHASED AURORA COMMON STOCK ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE
BETWEEN OCTOBER 23, 2018 AND FEBRUARY 28, 2020, INCLUSIVE, YOUR
RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than February
27, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than February
27, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by February 27,
2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you purchased Aurora common stock on the New
York Stock Exchange between October 23, 2018 and February 28, 2020,
inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Settlement Class,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definition for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.AuroraCannabisSecuritiesLitigation.com, or
by writing to or calling:
Aurora Cannabis Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91320
Seattle, WA 98111
Telephone: 1-877-495-6308
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Aurora, Defendants, the Court,
or the Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (800) 449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
- or -
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Lucas Gilmore
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
lucasg@hbsslaw.com
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion such that it is postmarked by
January 6, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the notice.
All Settlement Class Members will be bound by the Settlement even
if they do not submit a timely proof of claim.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, you have the right to object
to the Settlement, the plan of allocation, the request by Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees not to exceed
25% of the $8.05 million settlement amount, litigation expenses not
to exceed $150,000, plus interest on both amounts, or awards to
lead plaintiffs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4). Any
objections must be filed with the court and sent to Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel by January 6, 2025, in the manner and form
explained in the notice.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN]
AVIS RENT: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Lopez Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOE LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC; and AVIS BUDGET
GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10283 (D.N.J., Nov. 4,
2024) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to
properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated Avis customers' full names, credit card numbers and
expiration dates, driver's license information, dates of birth, and
phone numbers (collectively "PII" or "Private Information") from
hackers.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed
to properly monitor and implement security practices regarding the
computer network and systems that housed the Private Information.
Had Avis properly monitored its networks effectively, it would have
discovered the Data Breach sooner.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Avis's negligent conduct, as the Private Information
that Avis collected and maintained is now in the hands of
cybercriminals and other unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.
Avis Rent A Car System Inc. offers car rental services. The Company
rents, maintains, and sells used vehicles. Avis Rent A Car System
serves customers throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachele R. Byrd, Esq.
Stephanie Aviles, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
750 B Street, Suite 1820
San Diego, CA90067
Telephone: (619) 239-4599
Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
Email: byrd@whafh.com
saviles@whafh.com
- and -
Jon Tostrud, Esq.
Anthony Carter, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310/278-2600
Facsimile: 310/278-2640
Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com
acarter@tostrudlaw.com
BARTLESVILLE, OK: Banks Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Bartlesville,
Oklahoma. The case is styled as Kelly W. Banks, Stephani M. Banks,
Jeremy J. Batchelder, Clint W. Berry, Eric W. Bevins, Christian L.
Brammer, Thomas F. Brink, Edwin L. Brown, Harold A. Brown,
Christopher C. Buchanan, Michael P. Burch, Steve W. Burnett, Adam
W. Butterfield, Justin W. Butterfield, Barry L. Campbell, Brett L.
Chew, Camron B. Chew, Jonathan K. Colliver, Michael Crabtree, Mark
C. Curtis, Ryan L. Dingman, Curtis B. Formby, Marlon D. Gabriel,
Broderick Guise, Robert D. Harris, Jacob L. Hickock, Robert M.
Horsman, Brett A. Howard, Jeffrey C. Hubbard, Johnny C. Kelly,
Michael D. Kramer, Matthew S. Larson, Dustin B. Lott, Chad A.
Marshall, Justin B. Marshall, Tony A. McCammon, Robert D. McDaniel,
Phillip L. Mendell, Justin M. Miller, Dustin C. Milligan, Britton
R. Monday, Jerrsion D. Monday, Joshua M. Monday, Eric L. Munday,
David B. Neer, Chance T. Nissen, Cody B. Nissen, Kraig H. Owens,
Trevor W Rabbit, Malcom I. Raynor, Edwin D. Rice, Benjamin W.
Robles, Josiah E. Rovenstine, John T. Schmidt, Joseph A. Schmidt,
Jimmy L. Scully, Jeremy L. Shadwick, Jeff R. Shuman, Jacob R.
Spicer, John R. Spicer, Derek W. Tampleton, Mathew B. Tate, David
W. Taylor, Adam Dee Topping, Landon A. Ullrich, Michael G.
Upchurch, Timmy R. Vann, Braden A. Wano, Anderson Watson also known
as: Jerry Watson, Mikel B. Watson, Colby A. Williams, Ronald G.
Williams, Blandon J. Willis, Ryan M. Witter, Justin G. Woodworth,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. City of Bartlesville, Oklahoma, Case No.
1:24-cv-01172-UNA (N.D. Okla., Oct. 29, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Bartlesville -- https://www.cityofbartlesville.org/ -- is a city
mostly in Washington County and Osage County, Oklahoma.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven R. Hickman, Esq.
FRASIER FRASIER & HICKMAN
1700 SW Blvd., #100
Tulsa, OK 74107
Phone: (918) 584-4724
Fax: (918) 583-5637
Email: info@frasierlaw.com
BCPSI ENTERPRISES: Robles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Primitivo Robles, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BCPSI ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a HIGHSTONE, Case No.
1:24-cv-08429 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate the Defendant's Website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website,
www.highstone.nyc, and therefore its denial of the goods and
services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's
Website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired
consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA.
Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using the computer.
BCPSI ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a HIGHSTONE, is a New York Limited
Liability company that owns and maintains a dispensary in Staten
Island, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 227-5700
Fax: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
BEAUMONT INDEPENDENT: Murphy Appeals Summary Judgment to 5th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREG MURPHY is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Greg Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Beaumont Independent School District, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-00135, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Beaumont Independent School District (BISD) policy, which
authorized just compensation under both the Texas and United States
Constitutions for Premium Pay wages earned for time worked during
school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On Oct. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
The Plaintiff amended its complaint several times, the latest of
which was filed on Dec. 8, 2023.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which Judge Marcia A. Crone granted on Sept. 25, 2024.
The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact on any of the claims contained in his third
amended complaint. Consequently, the Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment. Therefore, the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment was granted.
The appellate case is captioned Murphy v. Beaumont Independent
School District, Case No. 24-40704, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant GREG MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brandon P. Monk, Esq.
MONK LAW FIRM
4875 Parker Drive
Beaumont, TX 77705
Telephone: (409) 724-6665
Defendants-Appellees Beaumont Independent School District, et al.
are represented by:
Paul A. Lamp, Esq.
SPALDING NICHOLS LAMP LANGLOIS
3700 Buffalo Speedway
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 993-7075
BMW FINANCIAL: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in ORG Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled ORG Holdings Ltd., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW Financial Services NA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00708, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is
brought against the Defendant for alleged contract violation.
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, motion to dismiss case, or alternatively motion to
stay case pending arbitration.
On Apr. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand case and
to permit jurisdictional discovery.
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
surreply in opposition to motion to compel arbitration, dismiss
case, or alternatively, stay case pending arbitration.
On Sept. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to conduct
discovery.
On Oct. 10, 2024, Judge J. Philip Calabrese denied the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and the Plaintiff's motion to remand
case, motion for leave to file surreply, and motion to conduct
discovery.
The appellate case is captioned ORG Holdings Ltd. v. BMW Financial
Services NA, LLC, Case No. 24-3929, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee ORG HOLDINGS LTD., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Defendant-Appellant BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC is represented
by:
James W. Sandy, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
3401 Tuttle Road, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 378-9911
BMW FINANCIAL: Files 6th Cir. Appeal in Suit v. ORG
---------------------------------------------------
BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC is filing a petition from a court
order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled ORG Holdings Ltd., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW Financial Services NA,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00708, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is
brought against the Defendant for alleged contract violation.
On Apr. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration, motion to dismiss case, or alternatively motion to
stay case pending arbitration.
On Apr. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand case and
to permit jurisdictional discovery.
On June 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
surreply in opposition to motion to compel arbitration, dismiss
case, or alternatively, stay case pending arbitration.
On Sept. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to conduct
discovery.
On Oct. 10, 2024, Judge J. Philip Calabrese denied the Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration and the Plaintiff's motion to remand
case, motion for leave to file surreply, and motion to conduct
discovery.
The appellate case is captioned In re: BMW Financial Services NA,
LLC, Case No. 24-0306, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, filed on October 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent ORG HOLDINGS LTD., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Defendant-Petitioner BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC is represented
by:
James W. Sandy, Esq.
MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD
3401 Tuttle Road, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 378-9911
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Choh Appeals Suit Dismissal to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMENANG CHOH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Tamenang Choh, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Brown University, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:23-cv-00305, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in an
ongoing price-fixing agreement (the "Ivy League Agreement"), in
violation of the Sherman Act.
On May 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
Judge Alvin W. Thompson granted on Oct. 10, 2024. The Court opined
that the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs are legally insufficient
to show an adverse effect on competition as a whole in a relevant
market. At best, the Plaintiffs' allegations of anticompetitive
effects relate to just some market participants, not effects in the
market as a whole.
The appellate case is captioned Choh v. Brown University, Case No.
24-2826, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on October 25, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants TAMENANG CHOH, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Edward Normand, Esq.
FREEDMAN NORMAND FRIEDLAND LLP
155 E. 44th Street, Suite 1910
New York, NY 10017
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Cornish-Adebiyi Appeals Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN CORNISH-ADEBIYI, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Karen Cornish-Adebiyi, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Caesars Entertainment Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1-23-cv-02536, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against the
Defendants for alleged engagement in an ongoing conspiracy to fix,
raise, and stabilize the prices of casino-hotel guest rooms in
Atlantic City, New Jersey in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.
On Jan. 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Feb. 20,
2024.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Karen M. Williams granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with
prejudice. All pending motions were denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Karen Cornish-Adebiyi, et al. v.
Caesars Entertainment Inc, et al., Case No. 24-3006, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 29,
2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants KAREN CORNISH-ADEBIYI, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR
570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 623-3000
- and -
Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR
1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 854-4060
- and -
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Icee N. Etheridge, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
- and -
Stanley O. King, Esq.
KING & KING
231 S. Broad Street
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Telephone: (856) 845-3001
Defendants-Appellees CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT INC, et al. are
represented by:
Andrew Muscato, Esq.
Tansy Woan, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
- and -
Harry H. Rimm, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US)
950 Third Avenue, Suite 2400
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (332) 258-8480
- and -
Jennifer L. Del Medico, Esq.
JONES DAY
250 Vesey Street, Floor 31
New York, NY 10281
Telephone: (212) 326-3939
- and -
Craig Carpenito, Esq.
Thomas J. Scrivo, Esq.
KING & SPALDING
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 556-2142
- and -
Kevin M. McDonough, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Judge Approves $795,000 Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Dunn of Law.com reports that litigators who took on "gig
economy" companies and other employers for misclassifying
Massachusetts delivery drivers as independent contractors
successfully earned final approval of a nearly $800,000
settlement.
Attorneys with the Boston-based labor and employment firm Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, among others, brought the class action suit on behalf
of more than 45 drivers who claimed Cardinal Logistics Management
Corp. wrongfully took certain expenses for damaged items, uniforms,
and insurance from their paychecks. On Monday, November 4, U.S.
District Judge Angel Kelley of the District of Massachusetts
approved the $795,000 settlement in Roland v. Cardinal Logistics
Management Corp.
Following an exchange of hundreds of pages of documents and large
data files, the parties participated in two mediation sessions with
Mark Irvings, which resulted in the settlement in June. The
plaintiffs filed for preliminary approval of the agreement in July,
and the final approval hearing was held before Kelley on Oct. 31.
The trio of attorneys representing the plaintiffs, including Harold
L. Lichten and Olena Savytska of Lichten & Liss-Riordan and solo
practitioner James W. Simpson, Jr., were awarded $265,000, or
one-third of the settlement amount. Approximately $480,000 will be
distributed to the settlement class members, and the five named
plaintiffs will each receive a $10,000 service award.
"We think this is a very favorable resolution of misclassification
and deduction claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act, which
provides significant relief to the 47 class members involved,"
Savytska told Law.com.
The maximum share is nearly $55,000, while the average share is
just shy of $12,000, according to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
Drivers Frederic Roland and Jose Antonio Ramos Lima, who made
furniture deliveries, were among the first to file the complaint in
July 2023. They alleged that from the fall of 2022 through the
spring 2023, Cardinal required its drivers to pay for fuel costs,
vehicle maintenance costs, among other expenses. If damaged goods
were delivered to a customer, the plaintiffs alleged the costs
would be deducted from the driver's paycheck.
Lichten, who served as the plaintiffs' lead attorney, has litigated
several landmark independent contractor misclassification suits and
represented hundreds of FedEx drivers in similar cases across New
England. The firm has also led litigation against 7-Eleven
franchisee operators and UberBlack drivers who claim they were also
misclassified. Similarly, Simpson has litigated, tried, and settled
wage-and-hour cases in Massachusetts since 2007.
Andrew J. Fay of the Fay Law Group in Boston, who represented the
delivery company, did not immediately return a message seeking
comment. [GN]
CHARLOTTE, NC: Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling in Durham Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The CITY OF CHARLOTTE is taking an appeal from a court order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motion to
certify class in the lawsuit entitled Heather Nicole Durham,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. City of Charlotte, Defendant, Case No.
3:21-cv-00638-RJC-SCR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).
On Dec. 1, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment
and motion to certify class. On the same day, the Defendant also
filed a motion for summary judgment.
On Sept. 24, 2024, Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., granted the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and motion to certify
class, and denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.
The Court held that the Plaintiff had established the requirements
for class certification under Rule 23 for the class, as defined by
the Court, and subclass which consists of all members of the class
whose personal information was auto-populated onto a DMV-349.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is granted, and
the class is certified. Moreover, because the Plaintiff has shown a
violation of DPPA as a matter of law, she, and those similarly
situated, are entitled to statutory damages. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted.
The City of Charlotte filed a petition for permission to appeal.
The appellate case is captioned Heather Durham v. City of
Charlotte, Case No. 24-2084, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 29, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant HEATHER NICOLE DURHAM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
John F. Bloss, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN PLLC
301 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
- and -
Andrew H. Brown, Esq.
BROWN, FAUCHER, PERALDO & BENSON, PLLC
822 North Elm Street
Greensboro, NC 27408
Telephone: (336) 478-6000
- and -
Ann C. Ochsner, Esq.
J. David Stradley, Esq.
WHITE & STRADLEY, LLP
3105 Charles B. Root Wynd
Raleigh, NC 27612
Telephone: (919) 844-0400
Defendant-Appellee CITY OF CHARLOTTE is represented by:
Patrick Houghton Flanagan, Esq.
Stephanie Helen Webster, Esq.
CRANFILL SUMNER, LLP
P.O. Box 30787
Charlotte, NC 28230
Telephone: (704) 332-8300
CLAY-PLATTE FAMILY: Highfill Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clay-Platte Family
Medicine Clinic, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Breanna
Highfill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic, P.C., Summit Family
and Sports Medicine, Cobblestone Family Medicine Clinic, Barry
Pointe Family Care, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00703-GAF (W.D. Mo., Oct.
29, 2024).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I.
Clay-Platte Family Medicine Clinic, P.C. --
https://www.clayplattefamily.com/ -- is a medical clinic in Kansas
City, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Domenica Russo, Esq.
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101, Ste 1950
Phone: (314) 314-9384
Email: drusso@batyotto.com
CVS PHARMACY: Fails to Pay Sales Coordinators' OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Cordon and other similarly situated individuals v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-24307 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 3, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff for overtime hours at her regular
rate. However, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all her
overtime hours. The Defendant deducted 5 hours per week from the
Plaintiff's working hours, accounting for a one-hour lunch break
each day. However, the Plaintiff did not actually take these lunch
breaks. Instead, she was required to clock out for lunch but
continued working during that time, often having to eat while
performing her duties. These improperly deducted lunchtime hours,
constitute five unpaid overtime hours, the suit alleges.
In addition, the Plaintiff was required to work an average of eight
off-the-clock hours weekly. She had to stay to complete different
tasks before going home. Thus, during her employment with the
Defendant, Plaintiff worked a minimum of 13 hours without
compensation. These 13 hours constitute 13 overtime hours that were
not paid at any rate, not even at the minimum wage rate, as
required by law, asserts the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this case as a collective action to recover
from the Defendant overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the
FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former
employees similarly situated to Plaintiff ("the asserted class")
and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or
after August 2022, without being adequately compensated.
Plaintiff Cordon was employed by the Defendant as Field Beauty
Sales Coordinator.
CVS Pharmacy is a retail business operating as a pharmacy. CVS
offers a variety of prescription medications, over-the counter
drugs, toiletries and health products to customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DEEP ROOTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DEEP ROOTS HARVEST, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08333
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its Website,
www.deeprootsharvest.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when attempting to access the Defendant's
Website, on Oct. 17, 2024, from his home in Bronx County New York,
in an effort to search for and pre-order for pickup products and
services sold by the Defendant, including their premium hybrid
edible, "Blackberry Blitz Gummies, by Camino - 20pk" (last accessed
Nov. 1, 2024). However, despite the Websites apparent thoroughness
and transparency, the Plaintiff encountered significant
accessibility barriers that prevented him from fully utilizing its
services, the Plaintiff contends.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Turner is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content while
using his computer.
Deep Roots Harvest operates multiple dispensaries across Nevada,
offering a range of cannabis products for both medical and
recreational use.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
DESTINATION XL: Faces Esquivel Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOE ESQUIVEL, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. DESTINATION XL GROUP, INC., Case No.
3:24-cv-02053-DMS-AHG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2024) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On April 3, 2024, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's
text messages. The Defendant ignored the Plaintiff's request and
continued text messaging the Plaintiff. The Defendant sent at least
two solicitations after the Plaintiff's first opt-out request.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
the Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the
intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the
Class members.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of the
Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that
received the above text message solicitations. The Plaintiff
utilizes the cellular telephone that received the Defendant's texts
messages for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's
residential telephone line.
Destination XL is retailer of Men's Big and Tall apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
DEVILS LETTUCE: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Saunders Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly, Plaintiff v. DEVILS LETTUCE NY LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08454 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.devilslettuce.net, 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.
Devils Lettuce NY LLC recreational cannabis dispensary in West
Seneca, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
DISH WIRELESS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DISH WIRELESS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08328 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.boostmobile.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff
and other blind or visually-impaired people under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
On Aug. 13, 2024 the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase a smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra). Despite
Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the
website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which
effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping
experience, the lawsuit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Alexandria is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer. She is, however, a proficient NVDA screen-reader user and
uses it to access the Internet.
DISH Wireless is an American telecommunications company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
DMHT LLC: Durham Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA DURHAM, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
workers v. DMHT, LLC, ITAMAR LEVY, AND ITAI BEN-ELIT, Case No.
4:24-cv-04256 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 1, 2024) seek to recover wages and
overtime for time worked off the clock and to recover improperly
taken tips.
The lawsuit contends that the Defendants have a business plan that
includes requiring employees to work off-the-clock hours without
pay, urging/recommending employees report to work 15 minutes before
shift, but not permitting them to clock in early, and paying
employees sub-minimum wage pay while awarding tips to managers.
The Defendants have also taken the tips earned by other hourly
employees who have also been damaged, so this case is brought as a
collective action complaint to give them an opportunity to seek
redress.
The Defendants knowingly, willfully, or with reckless disregard
carried out their illegal pattern or practice regarding overtime
compensation, failure to pay all hours worked, illegally
distributing tips to manager, and compensating employees with
sub-minimum wages. Such practices were and continues to be, with
regard to the Similarly Situated Workers, a clear violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the suit asserts.
Ms. Durham was hired by the Defendants on July 20, 2023 to carry
out various tasks involving the service, purchase, and sale of wine
at their restaurant Doris Metropolitan in Houston Texas.
DMHT owns and operates restaurants in the Houston and Austin
areas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
EGGLAND'S BEST: Reimer Sues Over Cage Free Eggs' Deceptive Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
PETER MEYER REIMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EGGLAND'S BEST, INC. and EGGLAND'S BEST, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-11311 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 1, 2024) is a class action complaint
for equitable relief and damages against the Defendants regarding
the false and deceptive marketing and sale of Eggland's Best Cage
Free Eggs.
The suit says that Eggland's makes specific representations on the
packaging of its Cage Free Eggs and on its website about how the
hens laying Cage Free Eggs are treated. Eggland's represents that
"[e]very hen selected by Eggland's Best Cage Free Eggs is free to
roam in a pleasant, natural environment," is "in an open,
comfortable barn environment keeping them happy and healthy," can
exercise "normal function and behavior," and is treated "humanely."
None of this is true. Evidence from inside and outside of Eggland's
suppliers' factory farms, evidence from Eggland's suppliers'
claimed animal welfare certifications, and admissions by both
Eggland's and its suppliers, show that they are utterly failing to
meet the needs of hens or to provide pleasant, natural
environments, the suit contends.
Eggland's has violated, and continues to violate, Section 505/2 of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
and Section 510/2 of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act. As a direct and proximate cause of Eggland's violations, the
Plaintiff and other members of the Illinois Subclass have suffered
damages in an amount to be determined at trial, added the suit.
The Plaintiff purchased Eggland's Best Cage Free Eggs frequently
during the class period at Mariano's in Bronzeville, located at
3857 S. Martin Luther King Drive, Chicago, IL, 60653, and at other
stores.
Eggland's is a major egg brand in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
P. Renee Wicklund, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
535 Mission St., 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 259-5688
E-mail: rwicklund@richmanlawpolicy.com
ELEMENTAL LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit Over 2023 Cyber-Attack
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for
National Law Review, reports that Elemetal LLC faces a data breach
class action resulting from its alleged failure to implement
appropriate security measures, which led to a 2023 breach of
approximately 13,000 customers' personal information. Elemetal is a
precious-metal refiner based in Texas, operating in more than 45
locations in the U.S.
The subject breach occurred between August 22 and September 1,
2023, and affected former and current customers' personal
information, including names, government-issued identification
numbers, and Social Security numbers, according to the March 1
customer notification. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that Elemetal did
not adhere to industry standards such as encrypting personal
information or deleting data once it is no longer necessary for
business purposes.
The complaint further alleges that Elemetal failed to notify
customers of the breach in a timely manner, which violates
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA). The CCPA is the only consumer privacy rights law in the
country that includes a private right of action related to damages
suffered as a result of a breach of personal information. The lead
plaintiff claims he has received an increase in spam calls, texts,
and emails since the incident occurred. The complaint alleges
negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment, and
seeks money damages as well as equitable and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Specifically, such relief includes a
requirement that Elemetal delete or destroy all personal
information of class members and implement a comprehensive data
privacy and security program. [GN]
ELEMETAL LLC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Hinesley Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH HINESLEY, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ELEMETAL, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02744-B (N.D. Tex.,
Oct. 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers.
The suit says that the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal information—which they entrusted to the Defendant on the
mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure—was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach.
The personally identifiable information (PII) compromised in the
Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names,
government issued identifications, and Social Security numbers.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
13,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including,
invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value
of PII; uncompensated lost time and opportunity costs associated
with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data
Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; actual misuse of the
compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts,
and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to
their PII, the suit asserts.
Mr. Hinesley received the Notice Letter, by U.S. mail, directly
from the Defendant, dated March 1, 2024. According to the Notice
Letter, the Plaintiff's PII was improperly accessed and obtained by
unauthorized third parties.
The Defendant is a precious metal refiner company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a class action was filed 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.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Evolv Technologies
Holdings, Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate
executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
FLYNNSTONED CORP: Robles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRIMITIVO ROBLES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLYNNSTONED CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08445 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.flynnstoned.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.
Flynnstoned Corporation is engaged as a retail cannabis dispensary
in Syracuse's Armory Square, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
FORGE REALTY: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONCEPCION SILVA CORDERO on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. FORGE REALTY LLC d/b/a Mac Suites Hotel,
Friendly Suites and Umbrella Hotel Bronx, and GUS KARAYIANNIS and
PETER KARAYIANNIS a/k/a Peter Karas, Case No. 1:24-cv-08339
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendants for failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff worked 46 to 62 hours per week during her employment
with the Defendants. The Plaintiff's duties included cleaning
rooms, laundry machines, windows, air conditioners, vacuuming
carpets, cleaning stairs, mopping, doing laundry and cleaning the
office.
From 2019 to 2021 she was paid weekly in cash at the rate of $11
per hour, regardless of the exact number of hours worked in a given
week. In 2022, 2023 and 2024 she was paid weekly by check with a
paystub for the first 40 hours plus cash for any hours over 40.
Thus, she was paid $15 per hour in 2022, and $16 per hour in 2023
and 2024, regardless of the exact number of hours worked in a given
week. As a result, the Plaintiff's effective rates of pay were
sometimes below the statutory New York City minimum wage, the
lawsuit asserts.
Accordingly, the Defendants applied the same employment policies,
practices, and procedures to all Collective Action Members,
including policies, practices, and procedures with respect to the
payment of minimum wages and overtime.
The Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages pursuant to FLSA and NYLL,
and statutory damages for Defendants' violation of the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The Plaintiff was employed at Mac Suites Hotel, Friendly Suites and
Umbrella Hotel Bronx, from July 2019 till May 11, 2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
FPG LABS: Klosowski Sues Over False Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL KLOSOWSKI, ADAM KLOSOWSKI, MICHELLE SCHAFER, LAURA MENDOZA,
DORI SHICK, SOUPHARACK VANNASING, LAUREN TEVERBAUGH, JANINE CARLIN,
and JONATHAN CARLIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FPG LABS, LLC d/b/a OVATION FERTILITY, US
GENETIC LAB, LLC d/b/a OVATION GENETICS, and US FERTILITY LLC, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01210-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 31, 2024) seeks to recover
economic losses suffered by the Plaintiffs and Class members
arising from the false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading
advertising, marketing, and/or promotion of Ovation's
preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy ("PGT-A" or "PGT-A
testing").
The Plaintiffs file this lawsuit to remedy Defendants' unfair and
deceptive business practices arising from the advertising,
marketing, promotion, and/or sale of PGT-A as a proven, accurate,
and reliable method to decrease the chance of miscarriage and
increase the chance of giving birth to a healthy baby when science
does not support this and does not validate the PGT-A test results.
Ovation Fertility's PGT-A is promoted and marketed to patients of
IVF who are pursuing IVF as increasing the chance of pregnancy,
leading to a higher chance of a healthy pregnancy, reducing the
risk of miscarriage, and reducing the time to pregnancy. It is also
marketed as being greater than 98% accurate. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs and Class members each spent thousands of dollars for
PGT-A based on Defendants' material misrepresentations and
omissions. Studies show that when looking at clinic pregnancy,
miscarriage, or live-birth rates, there is no difference between
cycles utilizing PGT-A and cycles not utilizing PGT-A. Studies also
show that the accuracy rating for PGT-A is significantly lower than
98%, the suit claims.
The Plaintiffs and Class members say that they would not have
purchased PGT-A from Ovation Fertility had they known the truth and
seek all available damages, equitable relief, and other remedies
from the Defendants.
Ovation Fertility promotes itself on its current website as a
national leading network of fertility laboratories providing
leading-edge treatment. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Russell D. Paul, Esq.
Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
Abigail Gertner, Esq.
Zoe Seaman-Grant, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
800 N. West Street, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 691-9545
E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
scarson@bm.net
agertner@bm.net
zseamangrant@bm.net
- and -
Allison S. Freeman, Esq.
CONSTABLE LAW, P.A.
139 6th Avenue S
Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Telephone: (727) 797-0100
E-mail: allison@constable-law.com
- and -
Paula S. Bliss, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW COLLABORATIVE LLC
210 Washington St.
No. Easton, MA 02356
Telephone: (508) 230-2700
E-mail: paula@justicelc.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Vehicles' "Shift to Park" Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Monthly reports that GM vehicle owners report that the issue
arises when they receive a "shift to park" notification despite
having already shifted into the park position. Many drivers find
they must repeatedly manipulate the electronic shifter to convince
the vehicle it is in park. In some cases, adjusting the shifter
does not solve the issue, leaving drivers unable to turn off the
car and causing the vehicle's battery to drain.
If you own an affected GM vehicle and have encountered the "shift
to park" issue, especially if you have incurred repair costs, you
may be eligible to participate in a class action lawsuit.
Affected Vehicles
The "shift to park" issue reportedly affects several GM models,
including:
2017-2019 GMC Acadia
2019 Chevrolet Blazer
2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu
2018-2019 Chevrolet Traverse
2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt
2021-2023 Chevrolet Trailblazer
2020-2022 Chevrolet Traverse
2020-2023 Chevrolet Malibu
2020-2023 Buick Encore
Owners of these vehicles have reported "shift to park"
notifications when attempting to engage the park function. This
malfunction can prevent drivers from turning off their vehicles,
potentially leading to battery drainage and failure.
The manufacturer has been aware of the issue but has not yet
provided a definitive solution. As of now, GM has not issued a
recall for affected vehicles.
Eligibility to Join the Lawsuit
If you own an affected GM vehicle and have encountered the "shift
to park" issue, especially if you have incurred repair costs, you
may be eligible to participate in a class action lawsuit.
GMC Acknowledges the "Shift to Park" Concern
Since 2018, lawsuits and media reports have highlighted the "shift
to park" problem. A 2018 carcomplaints.com article revealed that GM
issued a technical service bulletin to GMC dealers, noting that
some vehicles might not turn off when in park. Engineers were
reportedly investigating the cause, but no solution or recall has
been announced to date.
This issue poses safety risks. Drivers have reported that their
vehicles cannot be turned off unless the system recognizes that it
is in "park," and in some cases, the vehicle may roll as if in
neutral.
Ongoing Consumer Complaints
GM drivers continue to report problems related to this defect. One
New Jersey driver stated, "I am currently at the dealership and
have been informed that since my vehicle is out of warranty, I will
be responsible for the repairs. This is a safety concern that GMC
is fully aware of."
Another driver from Connecticut described an incident where, after
parking and shifting to "Park," their car began rolling forward,
displaying the message "shift to park." Thankfully, they were able
to apply the brakes before any harm occurred.
Numerous similar complaints have surfaced on carcomplaints.com,
often involving vehicles with fewer than 25,000 miles.
Tennessee Class Action Lawsuit ("Shift to Park")
Plaintiff Rilla Jefferson has filed a class action lawsuit against
GM, claiming that her 2017 GMC Acadia failed to recognize when it
was in park. This issue prevented her from turning off the vehicle
and created difficulties in starting it. She alleges GM breached
its warranty when her dealership did not attempt to repair the
defect.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee approved Jefferson's motion for class certification,
establishing a class of Tennessee purchasers and lessees of
2017-2018 GMC Acadia vehicles who did not receive warranty repairs
free of silicone. The court also dismissed GM's claim that it was
not obligated to fix the "shift to park" issue under warranty. A
jury trial is scheduled for January 13, 2025.
Further details: www.tngmshifttopark.com
Ohio Class Action Lawsuit
Plaintiff Mark Riley has also filed a class action lawsuit,
claiming his 2017 GMC Acadia failed to recognize when it was in
park. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
certified a class for Ohio buyers of 2017-2019 GMC Acadia, 2019
Chevrolet Blazer, 2016-2019 Chevrolet Malibu, 2018-2019 Chevrolet
Traverse, and 2016-2019 Chevrolet Volt vehicles.
Riley alleges GM breached its warranty as the dealership did not
address the issue, and the one repair attempt made did not resolve
it.
Participate in the GM "Shift to Park" Lawsuit
Owners or lessees of affected GMC Acadia, Buick Encore, or
Chevrolet models who have encountered "shift to park" issues may be
eligible to join this class action lawsuit. [GN]
GOODRX INC: Faces Community Suit Over Price-Fixing Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
COMMUNITY CARE PHARMACY, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-09490 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendants for
orchestrating a horizonal conspiracy among certain pharmacy benefit
managers ("PBMs") to fix and suppress the rates of reimbursement
paid to independent pharmacies for generic drugs.
Since Jan. 1, 2024, and possibly sooner, at least four PBMs—CVS
Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus Health
Solutions— have agreed to participate in GoodRx's Integrated
Savings Program ("ISP"). As part of the ISP, the Conspiring PBMs
agree to outsource their pharmacy reimbursement rate decisions on
generic drugs to a mutual third party, GoodRx, which sets the rates
of reimbursement for them with full knowledge of competitively
sensitive information ("CSI") across ostensibly rivalrous PBMs, the
suit alleges.
Through their ISP agreements with GoodRx, the Conspiring PBMs
(which are horizontal competitors) agree not to out-bid one another
on the prices they will pay pharmacies for generic drugs. The ISP
Scheme ensures that for each and every generic drug prescription,
the Conspiring PBMs always pay the lowest price negotiated by any
rival PBM in the GoodRx Information-Exchange Network, which would
not be the case absent the alleged cartel, asserts the suit.
The alleged ISP Scheme is unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. As a direct and proximate result of this unlawful scheme, the
Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class have suffered
injury to their business or property and will continue to suffer
economic injury and deprivation of the benefit of free and fair
competition unless Defendants' conduct is enjoined, the suit
further says.
Community Care is an independent pharmacy based in Garden City,
Michigan. Community Care is owned and operated by pharmacist Maisa
Jaimie Hider, who is also a physician. Dr. Hider comes from a
family of pharmacists.
GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy
information services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Halley Josephs, Esq.
Bill Carmody, Esq.
Shawn Rabin, Esq.
Tom Boardman, Esq.
Henry Walter, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: hjosephs@susmangodfrey.com
bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
srabin@susmangodfrey.com
tboardman@susmangodfrey.com
hwalter@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Natasha Fernández-Silber, Esq.
Julian Zhu, Esq.
Abby Lemert, Esq.
Yaman Salahi, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 N La Salle Dr., 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com
jzhu@edelson.com
alemert@edelson.com
ysalahi@edelson.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Braking Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sepehr Daghighian of CCA reports that Hyundai Motor America is
under scrutiny following reports of defective anti-lock braking
(ABS) and traction control systems in its 2023 and 2024 Palisade
models. Numerous owners have reported malfunctions that compromise
the effectiveness of these systems, posing potential safety hazards
on the road.
Background of the Lawsuit
In October 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed against Hyundai
on behalf of affected owners and lessees, alleging that the company
failed to address these defects and did not disclose them to
consumers during purchase or lease.
Which Models Are Affected?
The class action targets the 2023 and 2024 Hyundai Palisade SUVs,
specifically those experiencing braking issues under certain
conditions. Owners have reported that the Palisade's braking
capacity is significantly reduced when driving at lower speeds on
uneven surfaces. This defect has reportedly prevented drivers from
stopping within a safe distance, particularly when approaching
intersections or stop signs. Some owners even recount near
accidents due to the unpredictable performance of the braking
system, which may fail to engage or activate the ABS
unnecessarily.
What Hyundai Owners Should Know
Hyundai's braking system issues are especially concerning, given
that the ABS and traction control systems are designed to help
drivers maintain control and stop effectively, especially in
challenging driving conditions. The class action lawsuit claims
that Hyundai's failure to repair or adequately address this defect
constitutes a breach of warranty and deceptive business practices,
as consumers were allegedly sold vehicles with undisclosed,
dangerous malfunctions.
Owners and lessees of 2023-2024 Hyundai Palisades who are
experiencing these issues are encouraged to consider their legal
options carefully. While the class action aims to secure
compensation for affected consumers, the benefits are often limited
to warranty extensions or reimbursement for certain repairs. For
some Palisade owners, filing an individual lawsuit could yield
greater compensation or even a buyback of their vehicle, offering a
more substantial remedy than the class action provides. Hyundai
owners affected by these defects should evaluate their options to
ensure they receive fair compensation.
How Hyundai Owners Can Take Back Control
While this class action lawsuit has been initiated, thousands of
Hyundai owners are likely affected by the same brake defect, with
many expressing dissatisfaction over Hyundai's inadequate
solutions. These issues often lead to escalated legal action,
highlighting the importance of protecting consumer rights.
If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big
vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with
you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The
Lemon Firm is your best bet. With the dedicated team members always
at your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if
your car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out!
[GN]
IKEA HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IKEA Holdings US, Inc., IKEA US Retail, LLC, and IKEA
North American Services, LLC d/b/a IKEA, Case No.
0:24-cv-04096-LMP-DTS (D. Minn., Nov. 1, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants' website, www.ikea.com, 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 42 U.S.C.
section 12181, et seq., and its implementing regulations.
As a consequence of her experience visiting the Defendants'
Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the Defendants'
Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader
users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website
content – content the Defendants make available to its sighted
Website users, the suit claims.
In addition, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action
under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendants'
corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain,
accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty
payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33,
Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages,
and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33,
subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence
of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and
discriminated against by the Defendants failure to provide their
online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible
with screen reader technology.
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
Ikea offers home goods, furniture, décor, appliances, accessories
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDE, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
INTEL CORP: Vanvalkenburgh Sues Over Defective Desktop Processors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK VANVALKENBURGH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 5:24-cv-07703 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant's 13th and 14th generation desktop processors released in
2022 and 2023 are defective.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff bought the processors,
reasonably believing that they would work as intended in computers.
But the processors were defective. They were unstable, prone to
crashing, and failed at high rates.
Intel ultimately revealed that the instability was caused by a
defect that allowed elevated operating voltage, which would damage
processors and cause instability, failures, and crashes, the suit
alleges.
Intel Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells computer
components and related products. The Company major products include
microprocessors, chipsets, embedded processors and
microcontrollers, flash memory, graphic, network and communication,
systems management software, conferencing, and digital imaging
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Richard Lyon, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
Email: christin@dovel.com
rick@dovel.com
- and -
Kevin Kneupper, Esq.
A. Cyclone Covey, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY, PC
17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-5998
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
Email: kevin@kneuppercovey.com
cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
INTEL CORP: Vanvalkenburgh Suit Seeks Class-Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick Farrell, writing for FudZilla, reports that Intel has been
sued over allegations that its 13th and 14th generation desktop
processors, released in 2022 and 2023, suffer from significant
defects leading to instability and frequent system crashes.
The legal action, initiated by Mark Vanvalkenburgh of Orchard Park,
New York, seeks class-action status and could potentially involve
many affected consumers.
The lead plaintiff, Vanvalkenburgh, claims he encountered severe
issues with his Intel Core i7-13700K processor, which he purchased
from Best Buy in January 2023.
The complaint states, "After purchasing the product, the Plaintiff
learned that the processor was defective, unstable, and crashing at
high rates."
Vanvalkenburgh described random screen blackouts and unexpected
restarts on his computer, which persisted despite applying an Intel
patch for the 13th-generation processors.
The suit references various media reports and social media posts
dating back to December 2022, documenting widespread complaints
about the 13th and 14th generation chips, collectively known as
"Raptor Lake."
Reports describe unexplained failures, instability, and an
unusually high rate of returns, suggesting Intel may have been
aware of the problem.
The complaint claims, "By late 2022 or early 2023, Intel knew of
the defect. Through these tests, Intel became aware of the defect
in the processors."
Despite these issues, Intel allegedly continued to promote the
speed and performance of its products without disclosing potential
defects. The complaint accuses the chipmaker of fraud by omission,
breach of implied warranty, and violations of New York's consumer
protection laws.
In a July 2024 forum post, Intel publicly acknowledged an issue
affecting the stability of specific 13th and 14th-generation
processors.
Intel attributed the instability to an elevated operating voltage.
According to Hannaford, the elevated voltage stems from a microcode
algorithm that miscalculates voltage requests to the processor,
leading to instability.
Intel further clarified the issue in September, identifying it as
"Vmin Shift Instability." The chipmaker explained that this
instability is caused by a vulnerable clock tree circuit within the
IA core that can degrade over time when exposed to elevated voltage
and temperature, resulting in system instability.
Chipzilla has since issued three microcode patches: an initial
patch in June adjusted the Enhanced Thermal Velocity Boost (eTVB)
algorithm, followed by updates in August and September to prevent
excessive voltage requests by the processor, even when idle or
under light load.
The company has extended the warranty for specific affected chips
by two years and introduced a support program in August, with
further details added in September.
Chipzilla's response has not yet fully alleviated consumer
frustration, and this case could have far-reaching implications for
both the company and the consumers who invested in its processors.
[GN]
LANDMARK ADMIN: Fails to Secure Customers' Personal Info, King Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA KING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC and LIBERTY BANKERS INSURANCE GROUP, Case
No. 3:24-cv-02739-G (N.D. Tex., Oct. 31, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of the Plaintiff and Class Members.
The information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's
and Class Members' full names, driver's license numbers, passport
numbers, and tax identification numbers ("personally identifiable
information" or "PII") and medical information, which is protected
health information ("PHI") as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA").
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendants' negligent conduct because the Private
Information that Defendants collected and maintained has been
accessed and acquired by data thieves, the lawsuit says.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and 806,000 Class
Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including invasion of
privacy; theft of their Private Information; lost or diminished
value of Private Information; uncompensted lost time and
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain;
experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and
the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private
Information, asserts the lawsuit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those
similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had
been subject to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what specific type of information was accessed.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers at
Landmark's clients, including LBIG.
Landmark is a third-party administrator for insurance
carriers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
CLAYEO C. ARNOLD,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
865 Howe Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95825
Telephone: (916) 239-4778
Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
gharoutunian@justice4you.com
LILIUM NV: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Kloster v. Lilium N.V., et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08479, on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Lilium N.V. ("Lilium" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: LILM, LILMW; OTC: LILMF) securities between
June 11, 2024 and November 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Lilium investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Lilium-NV/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On October 24, 2024, before the market opened, Lilium disclosed
that it had been unable to raise sufficient additional funds to
continue the operations of the Company's principal operating wholly
owned German subsidiaries. As a result, the managing directors of
the subsidiaries determined that they are overindebted and are, or
will, become unable to pay their existing liabilities. The Company
disclosed that, subject to certain limited exceptions, the Company
will lose control of the subsidiaries.
On this news, Lilium's stock price fell $0.33, or 61.6%, to close
at $0.21 per share on October 24, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The Company's stock price continued to fall in the
subsequent trading day, falling $0.06, or 28.8%, to close at $0.15
per share on October 25, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on November 4, 2024, before the market opened, the Company
reported that, following the insolvency of the Company's
subsidiaries, Lilium had not been able to raise sufficient
additional funds to conduct its ongoing business consistent with
past practice. The Company disclosed that "funding for the Company
is not feasible." As a consequence, the Company would be "obliged
to file for insolvency."
On this news, Lilium's stock price fell $0.015, or 15.5%, to close
at $0.083 per share on November 4, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume. The Company's stock price continued to fall in the
subsequent trading day, falling $0.031, or 36.97%, to close at
$0.052 per share on November 5, 2024, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) Defendants overstated the progress of the Company's
fundraising activities; (2) Defendants overstated the likelihood
and/or feasibility of obtaining sufficient funding to continue
operations; (3) Defendants failed to sufficiently disclose the
imminent insolvency of the Company and its subsidiaries; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lilium securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
LIVE NATION: Appeals Court Greenlights Ticket Pricing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Sunkel, writing fo EDM, reports that the Ninth Circuit U.S.
Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision allowing a
class action lawsuit to proceed against Live Nation and its
subsidiary, Ticketmaster, over accusations of excessive ticket
pricing.
The plaintiffs in the class action suit claim that Live Nation has
monopolized the ticketing market, thereby inflating prices and
limiting consumers' choices in the process. The court condemned the
company's attempt to enforce restrictive arbitration policies,
agreements that force customers to settle disputes privately rather
than in court.
The ruling declared those policies "unconscionable and
unenforceable." The development marks a significant shift after
previous lawsuits were effectively blocked by these terms, which
the court found made it nearly impossible for consumers to hold the
ticketing giant accountable.
Live Nation initially argued that purchasing a ticket implicitly
meant consumers waived their right to sue and instead required
arbitration. However, the appeals panel has found the terms to be
overly biased, stating in the decision that they were "so dense,
convoluted, and internally contradictory as to be nearly
unintelligible."
The ruling comes amid other ongoing legal troubles for Live Nation,
including a separate multimillion-dollar lawsuit following a
Ticketmaster data breach that exposed the private information of up
to 560 million users, per TheTicketingBusiness. [GN]
LL'S MAGNETIC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ORTIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LL'S MAGNETIC CLAY, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01071 (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 4, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://enviromedica.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.
LL'S Magnetic Clay, Inc. manufactures natural medicine products.
[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
LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Fails to Pay Underwriters' OT Wages, Huff Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
CANDI HUFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LOANUNITED.COM, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00820-JCB (D.
Utah, Oct. 31, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages owed by LoanUnited.com, LLC, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Huff often worked 55 hours, or more, each week for Loan
United. However, LoanUnited did not pay the Plaintiff Huff and the
other underwriters overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours
in a week. Instead, LoanUnited improperly classified Huff and the
other underwriters as exempt employees and paid them a salary with
no overtime compensation, the Plaintiff contends.
LoanUnited's underwriters are not allowed to deviate from the
techniques and procedures utilized to perform their job duties or
from any quality standards. With these job duties, the Plaintiff
Huff was clearly a non-exempt employee under the FLSA, the suit
says.
Plaintiff Huff worked for LoanUnited as a mortgage underwriter from
April 2023 to July 2024.
LoanUnited operates financial institutions throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Galvez, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
222 S. Main Street, Suite 537
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (689) 216-7762
Facsimile: (689) 216-7812
E-mail: jgalvez@forthepeople.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
Justin Vineyard, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plz, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
META PLATFORMS: Court Scrutinizes Risk Disclosures in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Swoyer of The Washington Times reports that the Supreme Court
grappled Wednesday, November 6, with what level of risk disclosures
companies must share with their investors, as part of a
class-action lawsuit receiving scrutiny over the political
consulting firm Cambridge Analytica's collection and use of
Facebook user data during the 2016 presidential election.
The liberal wing of the court expressed concerns that Facebook
wants a ruling that would allow companies to conceal crucial
information from investors.
"We are also looking to misleading statements or misleading
omissions," said Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. "These
forward looking statements can be misleading."
"I don't know if your position is appreciating the fact that . . .
past triggering events can still lead to future harm," said Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee.
But the conservative wing appeared troubled by what type of warning
a company must give about the potential of a data leak.
"Data breaches are part of our lives these days," said Justice Neil
M. Gorsuch, a Trump appointee.
The class-action lawsuit over private securities fraud came about
when a group of investors went to purchase Facebook stock between
2017 and 2018.
The price ended up dropping in 2018 after it was revealed that user
data had been collected and used to benefit the presidential
campaigns of Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, and eventually of
former President Donald Trump.
A professor at Cambridge University developed a personality quiz
for Facebook users in 2014 that collected data from more than
270,000 people and created "personality scores" that were used to
study voter behaviors. He then sold the data to Cambridge
Analytica, a British consulting firm.
The data aided Mr. Cruz's and Mr. Trump's campaigns, according to
court documents.
When news outlets discovered the data leak in 2015, Facebook
removed the quiz app and had the professor and Cambridge Analytica
confirm in writing that the data had been purged from its systems.
Stock prices did not drop initially after the news broke.
However, it was discovered in 2018 that the data was still being
retained to have benefited the Trump team. Stock prices then fell
in 2018 by 18%.
The investors and Amalgamated Bank argued that Facebook's
disclosure form warned that security breaches and the disclosure of
data might harm the company's business and reputation, but that the
issue was posed as "merely hypothetical," when in fact a breach had
already taken place.
Attorney Kevin K. Russell, representing Amalgamated Bank, said a
monumental past event happened but it was not disclosed in a way to
put investors on notice.
"Reasonable investors would have thought this never happened,
especially on this scale," Mr. Russell said. "Facebook misled
people into thinking that it hadn't."
The justices could resolve a circuit split in their ruling, which
is expected by June, about what type of risk disclosures public
companies must make.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has said companies don't need
to disclose past risk events, while six other appellate courts have
required companies to disclose past risk events if the company
knows it will harm the business.
The 9th Circuit, however, ruled against Facebook in the investors'
action, requiring public companies to disclose a past event even if
there's no current threat to business.
Facebook, in its court filing, said that the 9th Circuit's ruling
will "light a beacon for class-action lawsuits."
Attorney Kannon K. Shanmugam, representing Facebook, told the high
court companies are under other requirements to update
shareholders. He said the 9th Circuit ruling was an outlier.
"It would really convert these disclosures. . . into disclosures of
laundry lists of past occurrences," Mr. Shanmugam said.
The Biden administration is siding with Amalgamated Bank and the
shareholders.
The federal government says the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission has an interest in the case and had brought an
enforcement action against Facebook in 2019 over similar concerns
regarding describing particular risk factors as hypothetical.
Facebook had settled the case with the SEC for $100 million.
The case is Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank. [GN]
MICHIGAN: Delta County Won't Join Class Action Over Energy Projects
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilsa Minor of Daily Press reports that The Delta County Board of
Commissioners voted not to enter into a class action lawsuit
against the state of Michigan over the Public Act 233, which
critics have argued strips local control from municipalities to
regulate utility-scale solar and wind energy developments in their
communities and gives it to the Michigan Public Service
Commission.
The lawsuit presented Tuesday, November 5, is being brought by
Michigan-based law firm Foster Swift -- which represents a number
of Upper Peninsula municipalities -- against the MPSC. Foster
Swift's argument in the suit is that the MPSC overstepped its
authority in a 168-page order the MPSC issued Oct. 10 that
clarified the permitting process the it would use when siting
renewable energy facilities.
"Not only is the MPSC wrong on the law, but it is also grossly
overstepping its authority as an administrative agency," Chair of
Foster Swift's Administrative Municipal Practice Group Michael D.
Homier wrote to municipalities in an undated letter that has been
widely-circulated among counties, townships, and municipal
associations despite being marked as "subject to attorney-client
privilege."
Escanaba Township, which is both a hotbed of contention over solar
development and is represented by a municipal attorney from Foster
Swift, joined the suit Oct. 14.
Commissioner Steve Viau, who represents Escanaba Township's
District 1 and regularly attends township meetings, said he opposed
the county joining in on the suit based on his conversations with
residents and utility providers.
"I've talked with some of the solar providers like DTE and they're
saying it could be a battle and it could cost some money and we'll
lose money by trying to move forward with this lawsuit at this
point. I'm trying to stay neutral because I represent both sides, a
lot of people don't want industrial solar; there are some that want
it, and I just think that the state made their decision," he said.
Viau further described the suit as a "backdoor" loophole "trying to
stop the projects that are potentially on the table now."
Escanaba Township, which has a lengthy and tumultuous history with
solar development proposals, adopted a zoning ordinance amendment
in 2022 that uses an overlay district to restrict utility-scale
solar development to an area of less than 400 acres bordering
Brampton Township, east of the Escanaba River, the vast majority of
which is contained in a single parcel. A further restriction in the
ordinance limits solar developments to 20% of a single parcel,
leaving less than 80 buildable acres in the township.
The overlay district and restrictions effectively ended a proposed
utility-scale solar development that was slated to be placed in the
Flat Rock area of the township, which initially had broad support
from the township board. That support faded when a group of
anti-solar development individuals joined the township's planning
commission and township board, but the landowners that were
contracted to be a part of the project have continued to seek other
avenues to use their land for solar power generation.
If the MPSC's interpretation of the law is upheld, Escanaba
Township's overlay district would be incompatible and the township
would have no decision making power over siting utility scale solar
projects. In addition, the township could potentially lose out on
financial reimbursements provided to municipalities with Compatible
Renewable Energy Ordinances, commonly referred to as "CREOs" in
place.
PA 233 specifies that if municipalities want to be involved in the
siting process and not have site plans processed by the MPSC
directly they must adopt a CREO. PA 233 defines these CREOs as "an
ordinance that provides for the development of energy facilities
within a local unit of government, the requirements of which are no
more restrictive than the provisions included in Section 226(8)."
Section 226(8) outlines a number of requirements like heights,
setbacks, fence specifications, and lighting restrictions.
The MPSC order states that CREOs "may not contain additional
requirements more restrictive than those specifically identified in
that section." Foster Swift argues in their letter "Neither Section
226(8) nor any other section of PA 233 prohibits municipalities
from imposing additional zoning regulations on utility scale
renewable energy projects."
Foster Swift further argues that the term "affected local unit" was
redefined by the MPSC when the order specified local units were "a
unit of local government in which all or part of a proposed energy
facility will be located" and was, contrary to PA 233 in
"attempting to limit affected local units to only those
municipalities that exercise zoning jurisdiction."
Local units of government that do not exercise zoning jurisdiction
typically do not participate in the site planning process, as they
have no rules in place to regulate development.
Despite the fact multiple landowners are still attempting to use
their land for solar and Escanaba Township's overlay district
quashed a planned development on their properties, the majority of
the Delta County Board of Commissioners disagreed with Viau's
position that the lawsuit was attempting to stop potential
projects.
"This (lawsuit) specifically, though, that we were asked on, that
came through the Township Association (is) on the Public Service
Commission's overreach. Nothing about cancelling any projects. It's
about the overreach that they did in the course of their business
where they decided they were judges vs executive branch," said
Commissioner Matt Jensen.
Commissioner Kelli van Ginhoven concurred that it was about
overreach. Board Chair John Malnar said the MPSC was "trying to
take the township and the county authority away from them."
Ultimately, the issue of entering into the suit came down to time
and money. No estimates of the cost of participating in the suit
were provided to the county and the deadline to join the suit was
Nov. 8. Open Meetings Act requirements for posting a special
meeting meant that by the time the law firm could be contacted for
more information, it was likely too late for the board to gather
and approve or deny entering into the suit.
In a roll-call vote, the board unanimously voted not to
participate. [GN]
MILO'S POULTRY: Faces Class Action Over Salmonella Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Hornet reports that Milo's Poultry Farms has been hit by a
proposed class action lawsuit in Wisconsin federal court after the
company's eggs were linked to an outbreak of Salmonella that
sickened at least 93 people.
On September 6, Milo's Poultry Farms recalled all eggs that were
sold under the brand-names Milo's Poultry Farms and Tony's Fresh
Market.
The eggs were linked to an outbreak of Salmonella that infected at
least 93 people in 12 states, including 34 people who were
hospitalized due to severe food poisoning.
The proposed class action was filed by Joel A., a man from South
Carolina who bought eggs from Milo's Poultry Farms on September 2,
2024, for personal household consumption, at a store near his
home.
He said there were no warnings on the package that the eggs could
present a risk of Salmonella contamination. If he had known, he
claims he 'would not have purchased the Products or would have paid
significantly less," according to the lawsuit.
He claims that he would consider buying eggs from Milo Poultry
Farms again 'if the Products and packaging were reformulated to be
safe and avoid risk of bacterial contamination due to Salmonella."
His lawsuit was filed on October 31, 2024 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin -- Case Number
1:24-cv-01400. [GN]
MODERN FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MODERN FURNITURE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-07630
(E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.modernfurnitureonline.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on June 25, 2024 to access the Defendant's Website from
his home in an effort to shop for a bed (Olimpia Platform Bed), but
encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to
Defendant's online goods, content, and services, the suit says.
Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner
that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was
unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and
was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the bed, asserts the
suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Modern Furniture offers a wide selection of furniture and accent
pieces for the retro and modern homes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
MOTHER'S BOUTIQUE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Reid Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHELSIE REID, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. A MOTHER'S BOUTIQUE, LLC, D/B/A LEVANA BRATIQUE, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08329 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024) contends that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the
Defendant's website, www.levanabratique.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
On Sept. 13, 2024 and again on Sept. 20, 2024 the Plaintiff visited
the Defendant's website to purchase the Freya Demi-T-shirt bra.
Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to
the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded
shopping experience, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Reid is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Mother's Boutique offers a wide range of bras, including
hard-to-find sizes, and providing personalized bra fitting
services, both in-person and virtually. They specialize in
underwire, soft cup, sports, and nursing bras, as well as shapewear
and lingerie.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
MYNARIC AG: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set December 30
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Mynaric AG (NASDAQ:MYNA) securities between June
20, 2024 and October 7, 2024. Mynaric develops and manufactures
laser communication products for aerospace-based communication
networks for government and commercial markets in the U.S. and
internationally.
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
Mynaric AG (MYNA) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
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; and (iv)
accordingly, the Company's business and/or financial prospects were
overstated.
Plaintiff alleges that on August 20, 2024, Mynaric issued a press
release providing an update to its FY 2024 guidance, advising that
"the company now expects full-year 2024 IFRS-15 revenue to range
between EUR 16.0 million to EUR 24.0 million compared to previous
guidance of a range between EUR 50.0 million to EUR 70.0 million",
citing "production delays of CONDOR Mk3 caused by lower than
expected production yields and component supplier shortages of key
components"; and that "the company now expects full-year 2024
operating loss to range between a loss of EUR 55.0 million to EUR
50.0 million compared to previous guidance of a range between a
loss of EUR 40.0 million to EUR 30.0 million", citing "the lower
than expected revenue and higher than expected production costs due
to lower yields." The Company also revealed the voluntary departure
of its Chief Financial Officer.
On this news, Mynaric's American Depository Share ("ADS") price
fell $2.32 per ADS, or 55.9%, to close at $1.83 per ADS on August
20, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Mynaric AG. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court
by December 30, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against Mynaric AG settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
NINE ENERGY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sledz Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SLEDZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NINE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:24-cv-00282-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex., Nov. 5, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Sledz was employed by the Defendant as a field tool
specialist.
Nine Energy Service, Inc. provides oil-field services. The Company
offers on-shore completion and production services. Nine Energy
Service also focuses on well solutions including cementing,
stimulating, isolating, and drilling. Nine Energy Service serves
oil and gas exploration and production sector in North America.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Curt Hesse, Esq.
Melissa Moore, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Centre
440 Louisiana Street | Suite 1110
Houston, TX 77002-1055
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
Email: curt@mooreandassociates.net
melissa@mooreandassociates.net
NUVISION CREDIT: Faces Class Action for Denying Loans to Immigrants
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CU Today reports that a Latino civil rights organization has filed
a federal class-action lawsuit against Nuvision Credit Union for
allegedly denying loans and financial services to certain
immigrants based on their immigration status instead of their
ability to repay, the organization reported.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) filed
the lawsuit on behalf of Luis Saul Bautista Martinez, 29, of Los
Angeles.
At issue is Bautista Martinez's application for an auto loan from
the Huntington Beach, Calif.-based Nuvision, MALDEF said.
"According to the lawsuit, Nuvision denied Bautista Martinez a
$35,000 auto loan, after giving preliminary approval to his
application, because he is not a permanent resident of the United
States. As a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
recipient, Bautista Martinez is authorized to work in the U.S. and
possesses a Social Security number," MALDEF said.
"There are currently thousands of DACA recipients who have held
that status for over a decade; there is simply no excuse for
treating DACA recipients differently than other long-term
residents, including citizens," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF
president and general counsel. "Regardless of (the) election
outcome, the rule prohibiting discrimination against immigrants
remains the law, and MALDEF will continue to aggressively enforce
that rule of law."
The suit challenges $3.3-billion Nuvision's denial of a loan to
Bautista Martinez as a violation of Section 1981 of the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act, which prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, color,
religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, age, and
other characteristics, MALDEF said.
CU 'Reversed Course'
"Because Nuvision had preliminarily approved the loan, Bautista
Martinez relied on Nuvision's representation and took steps to sell
his car," said MALDEF attorney Luis Lozada. "However, despite
receiving documentation, Nuvision reversed course and denied the
loan solely on the basis of his temporary residency, demonstrating
discriminatory intent and leaving Bautista Martinez without a
vehicle."
"Bautista Martinez applied to Nuvision for a membership and an auto
loan in April 2023. That same day, he received notice from a credit
union representative that his loan had been approved and asking for
a paystub and a copy of his Social Security card so the loan
process could move forward. Bautista Martinez complied. Since he
had received approval for the loan from Nuvision, Bautista Martinez
sold his car in anticipation of getting a new vehicle," MALDEF
explained.
"After not hearing anything from the Nuvision representative for a
few days, he reached out to check on the status of his application.
A day later, the representative asked Bautista Martinez if he had a
‘temporary resident card.' Bautista Martinez said that he had a
California REAL ID, which DACA recipients are eligible for. The
representative asked if he was a temporary resident, and Bautista
Martinez, who has had DACA since 2012, replied that DACA is
considered temporary but explained that he renews every two years
as required. He added that other loans and credit that he applied
for had been approved with his DACA card. A few weeks later he
received a formal denial of his loan citing his ‘temporary
residence," MALDEF explained.
DACA Status
"In July 2023, a Nuvision representative told Bautista Martinez
that the loan underwriter denied his application because his
Employment Authorization Card was scheduled to expire in December
2023 and asked whether he could provide proof of residency.
Bautista Martinez told the representative that he had given all the
relevant documentation to Nuvision and asked if he was denied the
loan because of his DACA status. The representative told him that
the documents he had submitted demonstrating temporary residency
was the reason his loan was denied. Bautista Martinez has been
without a car ever since," MALDEF said.
"The rescinding of my loan approval due to my legal status is yet
another instance of the persistent barriers individuals like myself
have faced over the years," said Bautista Martinez. "It is critical
to challenge such discriminatory practices to ensure that financial
institutions offer fair and equitable access to all. This case
extends beyond my personal experience - it addresses the broader
issue of ensuring equality in financial access for everyone."
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California, Western Division, seeks class certification. [GN]
OUTBRAIN INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Teads S.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Outbrain Inc. (NASDAQ: OB), relating to its proposed
merger with Teads S.A. Under the terms of the agreement, Outbrain
will acquire Teads in exchange for a cash payment of $725 million,
subject to certain customary adjustments, 35 million newly issued
shares of Outbrain common stock, par value $0.001 per share, of
Outbrain and, 10.5 million newly issued Outbrain Series A
Convertible Preferred Shares.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 5, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/outbrain-inc-ob/. 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]
PACS GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates 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 PACS Group, Inc. (NYSE: PACS) resulting from
allegations that PACS Group may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased PACS Group 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=30617 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 November 4, 2024, Hindenburg Research issued
a report entitled "PACS Group: How To Become A Billionaire In The
Skilled Nursing Industry By Systematically Scamming Taxpayers."
This Report sated that "[d]espite operating in a highly competitive
and highly regulated industry, PACS claims to have discovered a
winning 'turnaround' formula for transforming poorly performing
[skilled nursing facilities] into cash spigots", and that
Hindenburg's "5-month investigation, including interviews with 18
former employees, competitors, and an analysis of 900+ detailed
facility-level cost reports, revealed that PACS' 'turnaround'
strategy largely boils down to systematically scamming
taxpayer-funded healthcare programs."
On this news, PACS Group stock fell 27.7% on November 4, 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]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Cho Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Global. The
case is styled as Victor Cho, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Paramount Global, Case No.
1:24-cv-08311 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Paramount Global -- https://www.paramount.com/home -- is an
American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
controlled by National Amusements and headquartered at One Astor
Plaza in Times Square, Midtown Manhattan.[BN]
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Discloses Users' Viewing Info to FB, Cho Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Cho, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paramount Global, Case No. 1:24-cv-08312 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for knowingly and intentionally
disclosing its users' personally identifiable
information—including a record of every video viewed by the
user—to unauthorized third parties without first complying with
the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The suit alleges that when subscribers request or view videos on
the Defendant's Website and apps, their Personal Viewing
Information is transmitted to Facebook, TikTok, and other
unauthorized third parties as a result of the tracking tools that
the Defendant purposely installed and implemented on its Website
and apps. This information allowed third parties, such as Facebook
and TikTok, to identify each Plaintiff's and Class Member's
specific video viewing preferences and habits, the suit says.
Mr. Cho never consented, agreed, nor otherwise permitted the
Defendant to disclose his PII and viewing information to third
parties and certainly did not do so for purposes violative of the
VPPA, the Plaintiff avers.
Mr. Cho has had an account with Paramount which he has used to
stream shows and movies from his computer on a regular basis within
the last two years since the filing of this Complaint.
Paramount Global is a pre-recorded video content provider in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq.
Nathaniel Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Suite 4667
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
ben@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
PARK COMMUNITY CREDIT: Hester Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Community Credit
Union, Inc. The case is styled as Stephanie Hester, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Park Community Credit
Union, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00639-RGJ (W.D. Ky., Nov. 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Park Community Credit Union Foundation --
https://www.parkcommunity.com/ -- is a nonprofit with a vision to
build a more vibrant community.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aleksandr Sasha Litvinov, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Phone: (617) 202-3409
Fax: (888) 410-0415
Email: sasha@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Street, Suite 1500, #1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: (415) 839-7077
Fax: (888) 410-0415
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
PERSONA IDENTITIES: Johnson Sues Over Unlawful Personal Info Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JOHNSON, CHRISTINE MOUSER, and ABED ARMAN on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. PERSONA IDENTITIES
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11249 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant uses Plaintiffs' PII for training and improving
its machine learning algorithms that power its Verification API, in
violation of Illinois Identification Card Act and the Illinois
Driver's License Act.
The suit says that Persona integrates its Verification API into its
customers' websites, mobile applications, and other user interfaces
to authenticate and verify the customers' employees' and users'
identities and ages. As part of the verification process,
Defendant's Verification API collects and analyzes personally
identifiable information, including information extracted from
Illinois identification cards and Illinois driver's licenses, along
with identifying data from selfies.
The Plaintiffs provided their Illinois identification cards and/or
driver's licenses to customers of Persona for the verification and
authentication of their age and identity in exchange for access to
Persona's customers' online services provided by their websites and
mobile applications.
However, rather than limit the use of the information gathered from
the PII submitted to Persona's customers, Persona took such PII and
used it to train and optimize its machine learning algorithms and
enhance the automated functions of its AI system that powers its
Verification API. Such use of Plaintiffs' PII is illegal because it
exceeded the scope of permitted use under the IICA and IDLA, the
suit contends.
The Plaintiffs and other Illinois residents were allegedly not
informed of Persona's processing and additional use of their PII
for purposes beyond verifying their identity and age.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to hold Persona accountable for
unlawfully using their PII. The Plaintiffs seek to prevent further
violations, enforce compliance with Illinois privacy laws, and to
recover statutory damages for Persona's unlawful use of their PII.
From 2021 to 2022, Plaintiff Johnson allegedly placed multiple
orders for age-restricted products through the 7NOW application.
Whenever he purchased an age-restricted item, the 7NOW mobile
application prompted him to upload a photo of the front of his
Illinois driver's license to verify his age and identity.
Persona offers identity and age verification solutions through its
Verification API, which it markets and sells to various
businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David L. Gerbie, Esq.
Colin P. Buscarini, Esq.
Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 893-7002
E-mail: dgerbie@mcgpc.com
cbuscarini@mcgpc.com
jfrysinger@mcgpc.com
PITA WAY AUBURN: Miller Sues Over Failure to Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marc D. Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PITA WAY AUBURN, INC.; PITA WAY BAY CITY, LLC; PITA WAY
BELTLINE, LLC; PITA WAY BERKLEY, LLC; PITA WAY BIRCH RUN, LLC; PITA
WAY BLOOMFIELD, LLC; PITA WAY CHESTERFIELD, LLC; PITA WAY COLUMBIA
AVE, LLC; PITA WAY COMMERCE, INC.; PITA WAY COMMISSARY, LLC; PITA
WAY DAVISON, INC.; PITA WAY DEWITT, LLC; PITA WAY EAST LANSING,
LLC; PITA WAY FENTON, INC.; PITA WAY FORT GRATIOT, LLC; PITA WAY
FORT WAYNE, LLC; PITA WAY GRAND BLANC, INC.; PITA WAY GRAND RAPIDS,
LLC; PITA WAY GREEN OAK, INC.; PITA WAY HOWELL, LLC; PITA WAY,
INC.; PITA WAY LAKE ORION, INC.; PITA WAY LANSING, LLC; PITA WAY
LAPEER LLC; PITA WAY LIVONIA 8 MILE, LLC; PITA WAY LIVONIA, INC.;
PITA WAY MACOMB, LLC; PITA WAY MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; PITA WAY
MILFORD, LLC; PITA WAY MOUND RD, LLC; PITA WAY MT. PLEASANT, LLC;
PITA WAY NEW HUDSON, INC.; PITA WAY OWOSSO, LLC; PITA WAY PLYMOUTH,
LLC; PITA WAY PORTAGE, LLC; PITA WAY ROCHESTER, LLC; PITA WAY ROCKY
RIVER, LLC; PITA WAY SOUTH LYON, LLC; PITA WAY THOMPSON ANN ARBOR,
LLC; PITA WAY TROY, INC.; PITA WAY WALKER, LLC; PITA WAY WARREN,
INC.; PITA WAY WESTNEDGE, LLC; PITA WAY WEST OAKS, LLC; PITA WAY
WHITE LAKE, INC.; PITA WAY WOODHAVEN, LLC; PITA WAY WYOMING, LLC;
PITA WAY ZEEB RD, LLC, d/b/a Pita Way, jointly and severally, Case
No. 2:24-cv-12964-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., Nov. 7, 2024), is brought
by the Plaintiff arising from Defendants' systematic failure to
include all remuneration in their overtime computations in willful
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Throughout the relevant period, Defendants maintained a corporate
policy and practice of willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all
similarly situated employees the legally required amount of
overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, in violation of the FLSA.
In particular, Defendants failed to include bonuses and other
non-discretionary types of pay into the regular rate of pay for
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated when calculating their
overtime rates. As a result of Defendants' willful failure to
compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees at a rate
not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for work performed
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Pita Way as a non-exempt, hourly employee
from July 2021 to July 2024.
The Defendants jointly own and operate a chain of Pita Way
Mediterranean Grill restaurant locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
pkennedy@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park E., Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 824-3828
Email: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
PROFESSIONAL CREDIT: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Credit
Service. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional
Credit Service, Case No. 6:24-cv-01826-MK (D. Ore., Oct. 31,
2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Professional Credit Service -- https://professionalcredit.com/ --
is a collection agency located in Springfield, Oregon & Vancouver,
Washington.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
PROGRESSIVE CORP: Faces Class Action for Denying Collision Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Cousins of Law.com reports that Progressive was accused in a
class action of using a "binding restriction" to deny collision
coverage to policyholders, but under Massachusetts law, there are
only six scenarios when coverage can be denied.
This complaint was surfaced on Law.com Radar.
The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 4 in Massachusetts Superior Court in
Suffolk County, claimed insurers are allowed to refuse coverage
collision under General Laws Chapter 175, Section 113H in the
following six instances:
-- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has been
convicted of vehicular homicide, insurance fraud or motor vehicle
theft within the past five years.
-- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has lied
while making a claim under their policy in the past five years.
-- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person who has been
more than 50% at fault for four or more accidents in the within
three years before the effective date of the policy.
-- A vehicle owned or usually driven by a person convicted of
driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs within the past
three years.
-- A vehicle that has been issued a salvage title.
-- A high-theft vehicle lacking the minimum auto theft or auto
recovery device recommended by the commissioner of insurance.
The named plaintiff, Danielle Gondola, claimed she was denied
insurance coverage despite not falling into any of the exceptions
stipulated by Massachusetts law.
However, when Gondola chose her policy of automobile insurance,
Progressive allegedly "refused to offer first-party physical damage
coverage to Gondola." Gondola claimed she would have purchased the
collision and comprehensive coverage if it was available.
Gondola is represented by solo practitioners Joshua N. Garick and
Scott G. Gowen. Counsel for the plaintiff did not respond to a
request for comment.
The complaint also purported that all insurers are required to
offer customers collision coverage under state law.
Counsel for progressive has not appeared yet. Spokesperson for
Progressive, Jeff Sibel, did not respond to a request for comment.
"Progressive maintained that the reason it refused to offer
collision coverage was due to a 'binding restriction,' that it
baldly claimed was legal," the complaint said. "However,
Progressive never articulated the lawful basis for this 'binding
restriction' and how it could, as a matter of law, supersede
statutory authority to the contrary and deprive a Massachusetts
consumer of the statutory protections mandated by the
Legislature."
The proposed class accused Progressive of unfair and deceptive
business practice under General Laws Chapter 93A and 176D, which
has led to policyholders to "involuntarily forgo desired
coverages."
"Progressive has implemented a systemic, predetermined refusal to
offer optional automobile insurance coverages due to a so-called
"binding restriction" that runs counter to established
Massachusetts law that limits the circumstances under which an
insurer can refuse to offer optional coverages." [GN]
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Halter Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
VICTORIA HALTER, individually, on behalf of the Providence Health &
Services 401(k) Savings Plan and on behalf of all similarly
situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan v. PROVIDENCE
HEALTH & SERVICES; THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE PROVIDENCE
HEALTH & SERVICES 401(k) SAVINGS PLAN; John and Jane Does 1-30 in
their capacities as members of the Administrative Committee, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01829-SB (D. Or., Oct. 31, 2024) seeks to remedy
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
Each Defendant knowingly participated in the breach of the other
Defendants, knowing that such acts were a breach, enabled other
Defendants to commit a breach by failing to lawfully discharge its
own fiduciary duties, knew of the breach by the other Defendants
and failed to make any reasonable effort under the circumstances to
remedy the breach. Thus, each Defendant is liable for the losses
caused by the breach of its co-fiduciary under 29 U.S.C. section
1105(a), says the suit.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' fiduciary breaches,
the Plan suffered injury and loss for which the Defendants are
personally liable and are subject to appropriate equitable relief,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 1109, including the disgorgement of
all ill-gotten profits to the Defendants resulting from the breach
of their duty of loyalty, the suit added.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to obtain the relief provided
under ERISA, for losses suffered by the Plan resulting from the
Defendants' fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions, and for
other appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under ERISA.
Plaintiff Halter, by virtue of her employment with Providence and
participation in the Plan, is or may become eligible to receive
additional benefits under the Plan as a result of Defendants'
breaches and ERISA violations.
Providence is a national, not-for-profit Catholic health system
comprising fifty-one hospitals, over 1,000 clinics, and many other
health and educational services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth Creighton, Esq.
Kristin R. Bell, Esq.
CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
Strawbridge Building, Suite 300
735 SW First Avenue
Portland, OR 97204-3316
Telephone: (503) 221-1792
Facsimile: (503) 223-1516
E-mail: beth@civilrightspdx.com
kristin@civilrightspdx.com
- and -
Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Telephone: (678) 242-5297
Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com
RALEY'S: Removes Smith Suit from State Court to E.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of SAUNDRA SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALEY'S and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Sacramento (Case No. 24CV019351) to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California on Nov. 5, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:24-at-01407. The case is assigned to Jeremy D.
Peterson.
Raley's operates a retail chain of supermarkets. The Company offers
dry foods, fruits, vegetables, seafood, deli, bakery, meats,
beverages, and pharmacy and health products. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jon D. Meer, Esq.
Paul J. Leaf, Esq.
Justin J. Jackson, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com
pleaf@seyfarth.com
jujackson@seyfarth.com
- and -
Natalie C. Kreeger, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
Sacramento, CA 95814-4428
Telephone: (916) 448-0159
Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
Email: nkreeger@seyfarth.com
RENTDEBT AUTOMATED: Green Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RentDebt Automated
Collections, Inc. The case is styled as Zarius Green, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. RentDebt
Automated Collections, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01322 (M.D. Tenn.,
Nov. 5, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Rentdebt -- https://www.rentdebt.com/ -- is a debt collector
reporting a collection account on your credit report.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim O. Henshaw, Esq.
THE HENSHAW FIRM, LLC
826 Chickamauga Ave
Rossville, GA 30741
Phone: (423) 475-2700
Email: tim@bearclawinjury.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason M. Pannu, Esq.
Lorne G. Hiller, Esq.
FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP
1600 Division Street, Suite 590
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 208-4968
Email: jason.pannu@fmglaw.com
lorne.hiller@fmglaw.com
REPUBLIC CLOTHING: Bunting Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RASHETA BUNTING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REPUBLIC CLOTHING GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-07739 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.Thecashmeresale.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.
Republic Clothing Group Inc. operates an clothing retail store. The
Company offers women's apparel. Republic Clothing Group offers
pieces including jackets, sweaters, dresses, and skirts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
ROBINSON ECONOMIC: Faces Gomez RICO Suit Over Interest Rates
------------------------------------------------------------
ITZEL GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBINSON ECONOMIC SERVICES D/B/A CLEAN AIR LENDING; and
ROBINSON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07554
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2024) sues the Defendants for falsely
representing that their enterprises are "an arm of the Robinson
Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California, a federally recognized and
sovereign Native American Indian Tribe," in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Illinois
Interest Act, Illinois Predatory Loan Prevention Act, and Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act.
According to the complaint, any claim by the Defendants' they are
protected under tribal sovereign immunity is false, because the
Defendants are not a part of the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians
of California. The Defendants are not listed as a licensed
pay-day-lender on the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System /
Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry. Nor are they
registered with the State of California or Illinois, the suit
says.
Under Defendants' rent-a-tribe model, unscrupulous loans are made
in the name of Clean Air Lending and bear interest rates often
exceeding 600%. Together, the Defendants conspired to issue and
collect usurious consumer loans that violate applicable lending
law, the suit alleges.
On April 12, 2023, Plaintiff Gomez incurred financial obligations
to Clean Air Lending in the form of a personal loan in the amount
of $450.00. The amount the Plaintiff financed from Clean Air
Lending was only $450.00 with an annual percentage rate of a
staggering 699.9903%, resulting in a total financial commitment of
$2,612.78 (after all the scheduled payments are made).
Robinson Economic provides short term borrowing loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
pamela@kazlg.com
ROOMPLACE FURNITURE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THE ROOMPLACE FURNITURE AND MATTRESS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-08327 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.theroomplace.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase a furniture item (Remington 8-piece Queen Bedroom Set).
Despite the Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied
a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due
to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having an unimpeded
shopping experience, the suit says.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would
provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with
equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Roomplace offers a wide selection of affordable furniture and home
decor, including options for living rooms, bedrooms, dining rooms,
and home office furnishings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAINT XAVIER: Bowes Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Bowes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SAINT XAVIER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-11388 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 5, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information ("PII") including, but not limited to, names and Social
Security numbers.
On August 26, 2024, Defendant identified a systems intrusion into
its network (the "Data Breach"). Defendant implemented a series of
containment measures to address the situation, including activating
incident response protocols, shutting down servers and systems, and
commencing a forensic investigation.
Upon investigation, Defendant determined that outside actors first
accessed Defendant's systems on June 29, 2023. Defendant reviewed
the data that was obtained in the Data Breach and Defendant
confirmed that the data contained PII, such as Social Security
number and date of birth. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff
and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the
loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and
the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate
the effects of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of
identity theft.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion. Defendant admits that the unencrypted Private
Information impacted during the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members directly or indirectly entrusted
Defendant.
The Defendant is a private Roman Catholic University in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
- and -
Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
SAVE AMERICAN EDUCATION: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Save American
Education Fund, et al. The case is styled as Yandy Reyes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Save
American Education Fund, Saveamericaneducation.us,
Saveamericaneducation.com, Actblue, John Does, Case No.
1:24-cv-08451-MMG (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Save American Education Fund --
https://www.saveamericaneducation.com/ -- is dedicated to
supporting candidates & causes who defend American students'
freedom to learn.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
SHOP UNTITLED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Turner Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SHOP UNTITLED NYC INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08337
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 1, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's Website,
www.shopuntitled.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase the D. Hygen, Catch Washer Long Jacket. The Plaintiff
however faced significant accessibility barriers that prevented him
from fully using the Website's services when he tried to access it
independently to find critical details on placing his Order for
delivery. This experience not only hindered his ability to make
informed decisions but also violated his rights as a consumer and
an individual with a disability, the Plaintiff contends.
The lack of information caused the Plaintiff to suffer confusion
and exasperation while navigating www.shopuntitled.com as a result
of the access barriers but did not deter Plaintiff from trying
again on Oct. 18, 2024, to determine whether the website was
brought up-to-date, or sufficiently altered to allow Plaintiffs
understanding of the Webpages content. However, despite the
Plaintiff's attempt to access the information, the Website was not
as of that point, remediated, the suit claims.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Shop Untitled is a high-end designer boutique carrying a uniquely
curated selection of avant-garde clothing and accessories for Men &
Women from International designers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
E-mail: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
SMITTY'S SUPPLY: Proposes to Settle Class Action Suit for $31.9MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid,
Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, CAM2 Promax 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Oil, and/or CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil between
December 1, 2013, and the present, a Class Action Lawsuit and
Settlement with the Manufacturer Defendants Could Affect Your
Rights
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that a $31,900,000.00
class-action settlement (the "Proposed Manufacturer Settlement")
has been reached with the two Manufacturer Defendants in a lawsuit
regarding the sale and use of Super S Super Trac 303 Tractor
Hydraulic Fluid, Super S 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid, CAM2 Promax
303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil, and/or CAM2 303 Tractor Hydraulic Oil
("303 THF Products"). The Proposed Manufacturer Settlement settles
claims against Manufacturer Defendants Smitty's Supply, Inc. and
CAM2 International, LLC (collectively referred to as "Manufacturer
Defendants") that were or could have been asserted in a
Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") lawsuit.
The Proposed Manufacturer Settlement may affect your rights. For
comprehensive information about the lawsuit and settlement,
including the longer notice of settlement ("Long Form Notice") and
the Manufacturer Settlement Agreement, please visit
www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com or call 877-979-7115.
You may also access the Court docket in this case through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
www.mow.uscourts.gov/ or by visiting the Office of the Clerk of
Court, United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, 400 E. 9th Street, Kansas City, Missouri, 64106 between
9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Court
holidays. The MDL lawsuit is titled In Re: Smitty's/CAM2 303
Tractor Hydraulic Fluid Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2936, Case No. 4:20-MD-02936-SRB,
pending before the Honorable Judge Stephen R. Bough in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Please
do not telephone the Court or the Court Clerk's Office to inquire
about the Proposed Settlement or the claim process.
In the MDL lawsuit, Plaintiffs alleged (1) that the Manufacturing
Defendants' 303 THF Products did not meet the equipment
manufacturers' specifications or provide the performance benefits
listed on the product labels, (2) that the 303 THF Products were
made with inappropriate ingredients, and (3) that use of the 303
THF Products in equipment caused damage to various parts of the
equipment. Because of the ingredients contained in the 303 THF
Products, Plaintiffs alleged that those 303 THF Products should not
be used as tractor hydraulic fluid and that the fluid should be
flushed from equipment systems if one can afford the cost of doing
so.
The Manufacturer Defendants have denied the allegations and claims
of wrongdoing. The Court has not decided who is right or made a
final ruling on Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs and the Manufacturer
Defendants have agreed to the Proposed Manufacturer Settlement to
avoid the risk and expense of further litigation.
You may be a member of the Manufacturer Settlement Class if you
purchased the above-listed 303 THF Products from December 1, 2013,
to the present. If you are a member of the Manufacturer Settlement
Class, you will need to submit a Manufacturer Settlement Claim
Form. Please visit www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com for a
copy of the Claim Form or call 877-979-7115 to request that a Claim
Form be mailed to you. The deadline to file your claim is March 1,
2025.
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Proposed Manufacturer
Settlement, you must exclude yourself by March 1, 2025. If you do
not exclude yourself, you will release any claims you may have
against the Manufacturer Defendants, as more fully described in the
Manufacturer Settlement Agreement. You may object to the Proposed
Manufacturer Settlement by March 1, 2025. The Long Form Notice,
available at www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com or upon
request, explains how to exclude yourself or object.
The Court will decide whether to approve the Proposed Manufacturer
Settlement at the Final Fairness Hearing on March 26, 2025, at
10:00 a.m. Class Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of
attorneys' fees of no more than 40% of the Manufacturer Settlement
Class Fund minus case expenses sought to be reimbursed, as well as
Settlement expenses. Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award
an incentive payment between $3,000 and $4,500 for each of the
class representatives. The amounts awarded for attorneys' fees,
expenses, and incentive awards come out of the Manufacturer
Settlement Class Fund. This date for the hearing may change; see
www.303tractorhydraulicfluidsettlement.com.
BY ORDER OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT
A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
CONTACT: Tina Chiango, tchiango@rg2claims.com [GN]
SOUTHERN TIRE: Removes Nisbet Suit to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOSHUA NISBET, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN TIRE
MART, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of California (Case No. 24CV448451) to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov.,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-07653. The case is assigned to Judge Susan Van
Keulen.
Southern Tire Mart LLC owns and operates commercial and retail tire
stores. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gary W. Bethel, Esq.
Jason H. Borchers, Esq.
Andrew H. Woo, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
5200 North Palm Avenue Suite 302
Fresno, CA 93704.2225
Telephone: (559) 244-7500
Facsimile: (559) 244-7525
Email: gbethel@littler.com
jborchers@littler.com
awoo@littler.com
SPRINGFIELD PIE: Gerhardson Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Springfield Pie, Inc.
The case is styled as Jon Gerhardson, on behalf of himself and all
other employees similarly situated v. Springfield Pie, Inc., Case
No. 2479CV00660 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Nov. 5, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business."
Springfield Pie Inc. offers free delivery for most orders in and
around Springfield.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin K. Steffans, Esq.
STEFFANS LEGAL - THE EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
10 Wendell Ave. Ext., Suite 208
Pittsfield, MA 01201
Phone: (413) 418-4176
STATE OF MIND: Turner Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAVON TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STATE OF MIND DISPENSARY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08412 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.itssom.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.
State Of Mind Dispensary, LLC is located in Latham, NY, offering a
broad range of high-quality products designed to meet customer
preferences. [BN]
State Of Mind Dispensary, LLC provides wide selection of cannabis
products, including flower, edibles, concentrates. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq.
Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq.
JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 227-5700
Facsimile: (212) 656-1889
Email: jon@norinsberglaw.com
bennitta@employeejustice.com
STRATAS FOODS: Warren Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cordell Warren, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals v. STRATAS FOODS, LLC, Case No. 2024
CH 09121 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, on Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-11297.
The Plaintiff's Complaint contains one count, alleging a putative
class action for at least five purportedly separate alleged
violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act
("GIPA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David K. Haase, Esq.
Angela R. Huisingh, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
321 North Clark Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312.372.5520
Facsimile: 312.372.7880
Email: dhaase@littler.com
ahuisingh@littler.com
STRIDE INC: Rosen Law Investigates 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 Stride, Inc. (NYSE: LRN) resulting from allegations
that Stride may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Stride 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=30689 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 16, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research
issued a report entitled "Stride Inc (LRN) -- The Last Covid Over
Earner -- Hiding That Est >25% of EBITDA Came from Covid Funds."
In this report, Fuzzy Panda announced that it had a short position
in Stride, in part, because Stride was the "last Covid over-earning
stock yet to fall. The stock is near its highs [. . .] but
investors are clueless about the looming Covid funding cliff.
Investors don't know because Stride management has NOT told them.
[. . . ] Former Stride executives told us that management misled
investors."
On this news, the price of Stride stock fell by $6.55 per share, or
9.2%, to close at $64.04 on October 16, 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]
STUCKMAN TREE: Ferrera Seeks Laborer's Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jairo E. Ferrera, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Stuckman Tree Service South, Inc., and Logan Stuckman,
individually, Case No. 3:24-cv-00549-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla., Nov. 3,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked seven days
per week, from 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (11 hours daily), or 73.5 hours
weekly. He was paid for all his working hours but at his regular
rate. The Defendants did not compensate Plaintiff for overtime
hours.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff was forced to leave his employment
because the Defendants did not pay him wages in a timely manner.
The Plaintiff brings this cause of action as a collective action to
recover from the Defendants half-time overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the
provisions of FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff, and all other current
and former employees similarly situated to the Plaintiff who worked
in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after July
2024 without being compensated overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA.
This action is intended to include every tree cutter, landscaper,
laborer, and any similarly situated individuals who worked for the
Defendants at any time during the past three years.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from July 09, 2024, to
Sept. 18, 2024. The Plaintiff had duties as a laborer and
landscaper.
Stuckman is a provider of tree care services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Holguin Files Suit in D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Pathology, et
al. The case is styled as Emmanuel Holguin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Summit Pathology, Summit
Pathology Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-03060-MDB (D. Colo.,
Nov. 1, 2024).
The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Summit Pathology -- https://www.summitpathology.com/ -- is an
independent pathology laboratory, owned by a practice of twenty-two
board certified pathologists.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC
438 16th Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
T-MOBILE US INC: Zajonc Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Paula Zajonc, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE US, INC.;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV093263 was removed
from the Superior Court in the State of California for the County
of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on Nov. 1, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-07590.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: failure to
reimburse business expenses, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Act. The allegations in the Complaint are incorporated
into this Notice of Removal by reference without admitting the
truth of any of them.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Chad Greeson, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
Treat Towers, Suite 600
1255 Treat Boulevard
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: (925) 932-2468
TARGET CORPORATION: O'Dea Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lucinda O'Dea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-02763 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota on Nov. 1, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-04095 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Property - Other Fraud.
Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American
retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department
stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nick Suciu, III, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Phone: (313) 303-3472
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: nsuciu@milberg.com
- and -
John Hunter Bryson, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5023
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: hunter@wbmllp.com
- and -
Luis Angel Cardona, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
1311 Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00985
Phone: (516) 862-0194
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR AND FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Russell Busch, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
rbusch@milberg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brett Michael Doran, Esq.
Brian D Straw, Esq.
Dambi Kim, Esq.
GREENBERT TRAURIG LLP
77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 457-8400
TIDES.NETWORK INC: Stapleton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tides.Network, Inc.
The case is styled as Conor Stapleton, Jonathan Chitty, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tides.Network, Inc.
d/b/a Portal, Case No. 2024-1129-NAC (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 1,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Civil Action."
Tides -- https://www.tides.org/ -- is a nonprofit and philanthropic
organization dedicated to advancing social justice.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christine Mackintosh, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER PA
123 S Justison St
Wilmington, DE 19801
phone: (302) 622-7000
Email: cmackintosh@gelaw.com
TOP TIER SOLAR: Spratley Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Top Tier Solar
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Wayne Spratley, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Top Tier Solar
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00772-DJN (E.D. Va., Nov. 1,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act.
Top Tier Solar Solutions -- https://www.toptiersolarsolutions.com/
-- is the fastest growing vertically-integrated solar company in
the Carolinas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
James Patrick McNichol, Esq.
Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
KELLY GUZZO PLC
3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (703) 424-7570
Fax: (703) 591-9285
Email: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
casey@kellyguzzo.com
pat@kellyguzzo.com
matt@kellyguzzo.com
TOYOTA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Tacoma Transmission Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Anderson of CarScoops reports that two months ago, Toyota
issued a technical service bulletin for the 2024 Tacoma, announcing
that it would replace the eight-speed transmissions and torque
converters of vehicles with a pressure control solenoid actuator
stuck or a torque converter clutch actuator locked in the "off"
position. Evidently, that promise of a fix wasn't enough for Abdul
Syed, who is the plaintiff in a class action lawsuit filed against
Toyota.
The lawsuit claims that the eight-speed automatic transmissions of
2024 Toyota Tacoma models can fail to shift into gear, enter limp
mode, or engage harshly, leading to damage that can cause the
entire gearbox to fail. Furthermore, it's also alleged that the
transmissions and torque converters offered by Toyota as
replacements are also defective.
According to Syed, he owns a 2024 Tacoma TRD Sport that began
acting up with under 100 miles on the odometer. As he slowed for a
stop sign, he says the transmission violently downshifted and
jerked between gears. Then, accelerating from the stop, he noticed
a delay, sloppy engagement, and a jolt that didn't exactly inspire
confidence. Syed says he's experienced this unpleasant sequence ten
to fifteen times since buying the truck.
The class action alleges that Toyota is liable for fraudulent
concealment/omission, breach of express and implied warranties,
unjust enrichment, and violation of California consumer,
advertising, and unfair competition laws.
Syed claims the defect exposes him and other owners to "an
increased risk of severe injury or death." The class is demanding
compensation for repair costs (past and future), diminished resale
value, and even losses for those who sold their trucks at a
discount—claiming they paid a premium for the supposed safety and
reliability Toyota's brand promised.
In September, Toyota disclosed that it would replace the
transmissions and torque converters of 2024 Tacoma models that have
already been broken or experience any potential failures in the
future. Models with the available manual transmission are not
impacted. [GN]
TOYOTA MOTORS: Owners Can Appeal Compensation Case, High Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Byrne, writing for ABC News, reports that Toyota and Ford
owners who bought defective cars over the last 10 years will face
an even longer wait for compensation after a High Court of
Australia ruling.
The court ruled the assessment of damages "is the amount by which
the value of the goods is reduced at the time of supply".
What's next?
The High Court has sent a class action by Toyota owners, a cross
claim by Toyota, and a class action by Ford owners, back to the
Federal Court to be reassessed.
More than 300,000 angry Toyota and Ford owners who bought defective
cars over the last 10 years will face an even longer wait for
compensation after a High Court of Australia ruling in Canberra
today.
The cars affected included Toyota Hiluxes, Prados and Fortunas with
diesel engines, and Ford Focus, Fiesta and Ecosport models with a
dry dual clutch transmission problem.
Both cases were first brought to the Federal Court as class actions
which sought a ruling on how the car's loss of value should be
worked out, after the fixes had been developed for the faulty
vehicles.
The key issue concerned the guarantee in Australian Consumer Law
that an item purchased should be of an acceptable quality.
In a case like this where the cars were faulty, the law says
consumers are entitled to compensation for the loss of value.
The sticking point the High Court considered was at what point that
loss of value should be calculated.
Today, the High Court answered that question, saying the assessment
of damages "is the amount by which the value of the goods is
reduced at the time of supply".
All three cases, including a class action by Toyota owners, a cross
claim by Toyota, and a class action by Ford owners, have been sent
back to the Federal Court to be reassessed in light of the High
Court decision.
Filters blew out noxious gas
It has been a long road for the car owners and the two car
companies.
In the case of Toyota, the diesel particulate filters were supposed
to collect dangerous pollutants, but instead blew out noxious gas.
It wasn't until the so-called "2020 field fix" was developed that a
solution was found, and the company made repairs free of charge.
Ford also struggled to fix its dry dual clutch transmission
problems which led to sudden deceleration, intermittent revving and
loss of power.
The faults were intermittent and some cars had some of the
problems, some had all and some were not affected at all.
When the problems first emerged in 2015, Ford told customers the
shuddering was a result of their driving style.
The ACCC slugged the company with a $10 million fine, after Ford
admitted to unconscionable conduct.
The line between compensation and over-compensation
The current case was never about whether compensation should be
paid, but was about where the line should be drawn.
In the case of Toyota, the Federal Court said the loss in value for
the cars was 17.5 per cent, rejecting the company's argument that
it should be less because of the availability of the fix from
2020.
In an appeal, the court found the loss of value before the fix was
only 10 per cent.
The Federal Court judge in the Ford case initially ruled the
reduction in value was 30 per cent.
But when Ford challenged that, the Appeal Court found the judge had
failed to take into account repairs made to the car free of charge,
the value of the car at the time of the trial, and the use of the
car.
The High Court was asked to rule in both cases on where the line
was drawn between compensation and over-compensation.
It found none of the Federal Court rulings addressed the issue
according to measuring the loss at the point of supply. [GN]
TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Smith Says
------------------------------------------------------------
DARCI M. SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRADITIONS MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 24-1947 (S.D. Ind., Nov. 5, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Smith was employed by the Defendant as a medical
technician.
Traditions Management, LLC was founded in 2010. The Company's line
of business includes providing management services on a contract or
fee basis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kimberly D. Jeselskis, Esq.
JESELSKIS BRINKERHOFF AND JOSEPH, LLC
320 North Meridian Street, Suite 428
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 220-6290
Facsimile: (317) 220-6291
Email: kjeselskis@jbjlegal.com
- and -
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
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATION: Mitchell Sues Over Resveratrol's False Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEWELINE MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TWINLAB CONSOLIDATION CORPORATION, Case No.
2:24-cv-09420 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 31, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
deceptively labels certain of its Reserveage Resveratrol products
by misrepresenting the dosage amount of each gummy or capsule.
Specifically, the front labels of the Reserveage Resveratrol
Products prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for
example, "trans-resveratrol 100 mg." The front labels also
advertise the number of capsules or gummies included in each
Product, for example, 60 gummies. The truth, however, is that each
capsule does not contain the advertised dosage amount. Instead,
each capsule or gummy contains only a fraction of the advertised
dosage and consumers must ingest two capsules to achieve the
advertised dosage. As a result, consumers grossly overpay for the
Products, receiving only half of the advertised value while paying
the full purchase price, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers in the United States, alleging
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. The Plaintiff also
brings causes of action for breach of express and implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional
misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Further, the Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to (a)
cease marketing the Products using the misleading and unlawful
tactics complained of herein, (b) destroy all misleading deceptive,
and unlawful materials, (c) conduct a corrective advertising
campaign, (d) restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly
enriched, and (e) pay restitution damages and punitive damages, as
allowed by law.
Plaintiff Mitchell purchased the Resveratrol Gummies 100 mg and
Resveratrol Capsules 1,000 mg products from a Vitamin Shoppe store
in L.A. County in January 2024 in reliance on the Products' front
label advertising.
Twinlab makes, distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of
dietary supplements under the brand name Reserveage Beauty.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
U.S. BANCORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mora Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
ARNELLE MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. BANCORP; and U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-04112 (D. Minn., Nov. 4,
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 Mora was employed by the Defendants as a call center
agent.
U.S. Bancorp is a diversified financial services company that
provides lending and depository services, cash management, foreign
exchange and trust and investment management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
Zackary Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612)436-1800
Facsimile: (612)436-1801
Email: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
- and -
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
Thomas V. Nafziger, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
tnafziger@sommerspc.com
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: $375-M Antitrust Class Settlement Gets Prelim OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
fisherphillips.com reports that one of two class action antitrust
lawsuits involving the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) may be
coming to a close as a federal court Judge preliminarily approved a
settlement agreement between the fighting organization and over
1,000 fighters. This settlement could have an impact across other
sports leagues and professional organizations. What are the two
most important things to keep in mind when looking at this case?
Quick Background
Judge Richard Boulware II from the District of Nevada granted
preliminary approval on October 23 to the proposed agreement in Le
at al. v. Zuffa, LLC that would result in the UFC paying $375
million to this class of fighters who allege they were unpaid for
their fights with the company for years. This preliminary approval
comes after the judge previously rejected a proposed settlement
agreement of $335 million that would have settled both class action
antitrust suits against the UFC. The judge said he had concerns
regarding the total amount paid to the fighters and the provisions
regarding how funds would have been distributed to class members.
The current settlement proposal, which covers fights from 2010 to
2017, came with testimony from over 150 class members asking the
court to approve the proposed agreement and describing how the
payouts would improve their day-to-day lives.
Once finalized, class members could receive payouts ranging from
$15,000 to over $1 million.
The next steps in the case are as follows:
-- Within 30 days form the preliminary approval, the process of
notifying the class will begin.
-- Within 90 days, class members will be permitted to submit
objections to the proposed settlement or to the plan of
allocation.
-- A hearing on final approval is set for February 6, 2025.
1. We're in An Age of Athlete Empowerment
The first thing to keep in mind when looking at this settlement
agreement is that it stands as a reminder that we're in an age of
athlete empowerment. In recent years, there is no doubt that
athletes across all sports have continued to gain power and
influence in their respective leagues and organizations.
Each year, an increasing number of players from across various
professional sports leagues have held out from training camps,
preseason preparations, and even regular season games due to
frustrations with their current contract situations. Most are
seeking new contracts with a larger portion of guaranteed money.
In college sports, the House v. NCAA settlement could soon
distribute nearly $2.78 billion to a class of current and former
college athletes who were not able to profit off their name, image
and likeness between 2016 and 2021 before the NCAA adopted its
interim NIL policy. Further, there are other court cases and labor
hearings that are challenging whether college athletes should be
classified as employees under various legal standards.
It is important to recognize the power that the athletes currently
have and will continue to amass, and it is a trend that is likely
to increase in the coming years.
2. Could This Lead to Collective Bargaining in UFC?
Nealy ever major American professional sports league engages in
collective bargaining with their respective player's association or
union. Specifically, most collective bargaining agreements in
sports cover standards for player's conduct, revenue sharing
between teams and players, salary caps and salary structures, free
agency, injury grievances, health benefits, and safety standards.
These agreements are negotiated every few years between the owners
and the players association.
Currently, UFC fighters do not engage in collective bargaining with
the organization. All fighters are considered independent
contractors and are therefore not entitled to the same benefits and
protection as other professional athletes.
While there is no language in the proposed settlement agreement
that states that the UFC would need to engage in collective
bargaining with their fighters moving forward, it is a topic that
has gained some traction given the popularity of the sport.
It is worth noting that the UFC's current broadcast deal with ESPN
is set to expire in 2025. The UFC's current deal is worth $1.5
billion over five years. This is significant because the fighters
could negotiate for a portion of the TV deal if the UFC were to
engage in collective bargaining with them.
There is still more than five months before the final hearing on
the proposed settlement, but this agreement could continue to
further the age of athlete empowerment and lead to collective
bargaining in the sport.
Conclusion
We will continue to monitor developments in this case and provide
updates as warranted, so make sure you are subscribed to Fisher
Phillips' Insight System to get the most up-to-date information.
For further information, contact the author of this Insight, your
Fisher Phillips attorney, or any attorney in our Sports Industry
Team. [GN]
UNDER ARMOUR: Faces Deceptive Pricing Scheme Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Hall, writing for Sourcing Journal, reports that Under
Armour, a sportswear brand, faces a newly proposed class-action
lawsuit alleging that it engaged in a "false, misleading and
deceptive pricing scheme" that resulted in consumers paying more
than they should have for items from the company's outlet stores
and site.
Linda Rappaport, a New York resident, filed the complaint in the
state's Eastern District Court on Oct. 29.
The complaint alleges that Under Armour makes nearly all of its
assortment for its factory stores exclusively for those stores, and
that the items are inferior in quality to the goods sold in its
regular stores and on its regular site.
"All, or virtually all, of the merchandise sold at Under Armour
Factory outlet stores is manufactured for and sold exclusively at
Under Armour Factory stores," the complaint reads, noting that
almost none of the company's factory store merchandise has ever
been part of the assortment in the brand's regular stores.
Despite not being sold in regular stores, the complaint notes,
items sold in factory stores have a tag affixed to them that show
the "MSRP" -- manufacturer's suggested retail price. Items sold on
Under Armour's outlet site show an original price, slashed out with
a lower price next to them.
Rappaport alleges that those tags and price slashing depictions
influence consumers' perception of what the goods are worth because
they are affected by fake price comparison. [GN]
UNDERSTANDING NEEDED: Brooks Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brook Brooks, individuals, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General v. UNDERSTANDING NEEDED INTEGRATION, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV22448 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 31, 2024), is
brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA"), Cal Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to
pay all wages.
The Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
failing to comply with California Law concerning payment of lawful
wage for all hours worked, including overtime hours worked; failing
to pay all wages twice per month; failing to pay minimum wages;
failing to pay wages due upon termination; failing to provide
uninterrupted meal breaks; failing to provide rest breaks and
adequate restroom breaks; failure to provide suitable resting
facilities; failing to reimburse for required business expenses;
and failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements and record
keeping violations, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as an employee for the Defendant as a Direct
Support Professional.
The Defendant operates a support services company for adults with
intellectual and developmental disabilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
UNITED NATURAL: Suppliers Sue Over Improper Discounts Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Silverstein of Grocery Dive reports that United Natural Foods,
Inc. (UNFI) is facing a class action lawsuit that accuses the
grocery distributor of factoring in "prompt-payment" discounts when
paying invoices late.
-- The suit, filed on behalf of natural foods producer NYSM
Organics LLC, claims that UNFI delays paying invoices from food
makers who wind up owing UNFI money because of deductions the
distributor takes, financially harming the suppliers.
-- UNFI's practices are particularly problematic for natural food
brands because UNFI "is the only option for distributing their
products to key retailers" such as Whole Foods Market, the suit
says.
Dive Insight:
The suit centers on the prominent role the grocery distributor
plays in connecting food suppliers with retailers, claiming that
smaller natural food makers like NYSM Organics have little choice
but to work with UNFI if they want to reach Whole Foods' shoppers
because the wholesaler has a multi-year primary supplier
relationship with the retailer.
While other retailers, such as Sprouts Farmers Market, also carry
natural products, those companies "are not nearly as significant as
Whole Foods for smaller natural food brands seeking a foothold in
this competitive industry," according to the complaint filed Nov. 3
in Bristol County Superior Court in Rhode Island, UNFI's home
state.
In its suit, NYSM Organics, a maker of products including chocolate
and plant-based cheese headquartered in Vineyard Haven,
Massachusetts, alleges that UNFI squeezes suppliers by imposing a
litany of "opaque and constant deductions" in order to compensate
for its low margins. These costs, which the suit says include
charges for breaking down cases of goods or if a product is out of
stock, "are often crippling for new and smaller natural food
brands" and can result in suppliers owing UNFI money, according to
the complaint.
If a supplier winds up with a negative balance with UNFI, the
distributor does not pay any of the supplier's invoices until it
brings its account back into positive territory, the lawsuit
claims.
UNFI factors in a contractual discount for paying within a set
period when paying suppliers for products even if it sends payment
outside the prompt-payment window, the suit says. UNFI does this
"based on the fiction" that it would have paid on time if the
supplier's account was not in the red, according to the complaint.
"UNFI knows that even if this practice decimates startups and other
small natural food companies, there will always be new businesses
entering the market that need UNFI way more than UNFI needs them,"
according to the complaint, which adds that the deductions
"eviscerate any profits these brands may realize from sales to
UNFI."
The suit also says that UNFI's actions run afoul of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act when they involve suppliers
based in that state.
"At UNFI, we value all our supplier relationships and take any
concerns seriously. We are currently reviewing the details of the
complaint filed by NYSM Organics LLC and will work through the
legal process on next steps," a UNFI spokesperson said in an
emailed statement.
While the suit includes details about the prompt-payment discount,
including its size and how quickly UNFI is required to pay in order
to claim it, that information is redacted in the version of the
complaint available to the public. The suit claims the discounts
are big enough that they stress suppliers' finances and notes that
trying to push back on deductions UNFI takes "is so difficult and
time-consuming that it is cost prohibitive for all but the very
largest suppliers."
Suppliers also risk repercussions such as being placed on a list of
"non-preferred vendors" by UNFI if they try to challenge UNFI's
deductions, according to the complaint. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Josefina Doe; Isabela Doe; Commor Jerome
Welch; Felipe Niomar Martinez Ortiz; and JOSE DOE; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and The American
Friends Service Committee, Immigrant Rights Program v. U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 2:24-cv-09105 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on Oct. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-PLD to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
The United States Department of Homeland Security --
https://www.dhs.gov/ -- is the U.S. federal executive department
responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior
or home ministries of other countries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Alexander Shalom, Esq.
Natalie J. Kraner, Esq.
Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq.
Anish Patel, Esq.*
Ruth Zimmerman, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: (973) 597-2500
- and -
Shira Wisotsky, Esq.
Raquiba Huq, Esq.
Zoe Burke, Esq.
Emily Thornton, Esq.
LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY
100 Metroplex Drive, Suite 402
Edison, NJ 08817
Phone: (908) 882-2665
- and -
Tiffany J. Lieu, Esq.
Philip L. Torrey, Esq.
CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE
CLINICAL PROGRAM
6 Everett Street, Suite 3106
Cambridge, MA 02138
Phone: (617) 496-5497
UNITED STATES: Veterans Sues Over Misclassification of Illnesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kime, writing for Military.com, reports that two veterans
have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Army for refusing to
classify illnesses linked to burn pit exposure as combat-related, a
designation that would make their medical retirement pay tax-free.
Retired Sgt. 1st Class Kyle Smoke and retired Lt. Col. Jennifer
McIntyre filed suit Oct. 15 in the U.S. District Court in
Washington, D.C., over the retirements they were awarded after
being exposed to burn pits during their deployments to Iraq, and
Afghanistan in McIntyre's case.
According to court documents, Smoke has debilitating asthma that
rendered him unfit for duty, while McIntyre was diagnosed with
metastatic breast cancer that has spread to her liver and lymph
nodes.
Both conditions are considered by the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be caused by exposure to burn pits.
In Smoke's case, the Army's informal Physical Evaluation Board, or
PEB, ruled that the soldier should be medically retired for his
condition but that the illness was not the result of a
combat-related injury.
A formal board disagreed, saying that the disability was
combat-related, caused by an "instrumentality of war" -- the burn
pits that were used in wartime locations where proper refuse
disposal was a challenge. A board member disagreed with that
assessment, and a higher adjudicating body, known as the Army
Physical Disability Agency, or PDA, ruled that Smoke's illness
rated medical retirement but that it was not combat-related.
The Army later approved Smoke's asthma claim for Combat-Related
Special Compensation, saying the disease was a "verified disability
as combat related due to an Instrumentality of War," according to
documents.
Nonetheless, Smoke receives regular medical retirement pay and must
pay taxes on it.
McIntyre retired from the Army after 19 years, her informal PEB
concluding that her disease was service-connected but not
combat-related. The formal PEB upheld this conclusion, despite her
argument that her cancer was diagnosed in the line of duty in a
combat zone.
The PDA upheld that decision, concluding that burn pits don't
automatically constitute an instrument of war.
The soldiers argue the burn pits should be considered as wartime
necessities, given that there were few other options for waste
disposal in the combat zones. And they argue that those medically
retired since passage of the PACT Act -- 10,000 Army soldiers in
fiscal 2022 alone -- should not be paying taxes on their benefits.
"The Army [Physical Evaluation Board] has a systemic practice and
policy of denying combat-related findings for medical retirement
purposes for unfitting PACT Act Conditions on the basis that
military burn pits do not qualify as [instruments of war]," their
attorneys wrote in court filings.
The Army's practice of medically retiring soldiers for PACT Act
conditions is contrary to the law, they added.
"The Army's refusal to classify burn pits as instrumentalities of
war during the Disability Evaluation System process ignores that
the Department of Defense instruction only defines military burn
pits in context of combat, which is uniquely particular to the
military," National Veterans Legal Services Program Senior Managing
Attorney Esther Leibfarth said in a statement Oct. 30.
Burn pits were used in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to
incinerate garbage generated at military installations overseas,
including plastics, medical waste and industrial refuse.
The PACT Act, signed into law in August 2022, expanded health care
and benefits for post-9/11 veterans exposed to the pits and other
environmental hazards on those installations. It designated roughly
two dozen diseases and associated illnesses as presumed to be
connected to military service, paving the way for affected veterans
to receive expedited health care and disability compensation.
The attorneys cited the PACT Act as supporting their argument that
the conditions are combat-related and that Defense Department
instructions say that if a disability was incurred "during any
period of service as a result of . . . injury or sickness caused by
fumes, gasses, or explosion of military ordnance, vehicles or
material," the criteria for combat-related is met.
The lawsuit seeks to vacate the decisions of soldiers with a PACT
Act-listed medical condition who received medical retirement
compensation, awarding them combat-related, tax-free designations.
"Soldiers who valiantly serve our nation should know the injuries
sustained while serving are covered fully by the benefits to which
they're entitled," Emily Wexler, pro bono counsel at Sidley Austin,
a Chicago-based law firm, said in a statement.
The Army did not respond to a request for comment by publication.
Historically, the Defense Department and the military services do
not comment on ongoing litigation. [GN]
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Implement Data Security
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Health, LLP, individually and on behalf of all members of
similarly situated persons v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED,
OPTUM, INC., and CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-01504-JDC-TPL (W.D. La., Nov. 1, 2024), is brought against
the Defendants' as a result of their failure to implement proper
data security.
The Defendants knew or should have known that Change was
particularly susceptible to a cyberattack. Government bodies have
been alerting the healthcare industry about cybersecurity threats
for years due to the massive repositories of confidential personal
health information ("PHI") and personally identifiable information
("PII") that organizations collect and maintain and urging entities
to secure and protect their systems.
Accordingly, Defendants were or certainly should have been aware of
the high risk of cyberattacks given the massive repositories of PHI
and PII they manage, and therefore, should have taken all
reasonable precautions to prevent such incidents. Defendants were
also cognizant of the risks created by their substandard data
security practices and insecure computer networks. Their failure to
heed warnings, adequately secure their networks, and adhere to
recommended best practices caused the disruption and damages
suffered by Plaintiff and Class members. Defendants' neglect is
inexcusable, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Imperial Health LLP is a network of over 36
physicians working together to provide healthcare services to over
400,000 patients across Southwest Louisiana annually.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is incorporated under the laws of
the State of Delaware and maintains its principal place of business
in Minnetonka, Minnesota.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Korey Nelson, T.A., Esq.
Amanda Klevorn, Esq.
Claire Bosarge Curwick, Esq.
Natalie Earles, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
201 St. Charles Ave., Ste. 2900
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: (504) 799-2845
Email: knelson@burnscharest.com
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
ccurwick@burnscharest.com
nearles@burnscharest.com
- and -
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
Laura Soundy Seggerman, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
900 Jackson St., Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75202
Phone: (469) 904-4550
Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
lseggerman@burnscharest.com
- and -
Derrick Earles, Esq.
LABORDE EARLES
1901 Kaliste Saloom Road
Lafayette, LA 70508
Phone: (337) 223-9925
Email: digger@onmyside.com
UPFIELD US INC: Burgle Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Syvonne Burgle, and Edrie Schade, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UPFIELD US INC.,
Case No. CGC-24-617504 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, on
Oct. 31, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07556.
The Complaint asserts three class causes of action for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); California's False
Advertising Law ("FAL"), and California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act ("CLRA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Merrit M. Jones, Esq.
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4070
Phone: +1 415 675 3400
Facsimile: +1 415 675 3434
Email: merrit.jones@bclplaw.com
- and -
Darci F. Madden, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite #3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 259-2000
Facsimile: (314) 259-2020
Email: Darci-Madden@bclplaw.com
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tori Guidry of Troutman Amin, LLP and TCPAWorld reports that a
major class action has been filed against Urban Outfitters alleging
that the retailer violated the TCPA's National Do Not Call Registry
provisions by sending him unsolicited telemarketing texts.
In James Minor v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-02001
(M.D. Fl. Nov. 01, 2024), Minor, like countless TCPA plaintiffs
before him, says he took the time to place his number on the DNCR
to stop unwanted messages -- yet Urban Outfitters allegedly spammed
his cell at least 30 times in a matter of months, pushing
everything from "50% off" discounts to "summer essential" sales.
Based on these text messages, Minor seeks to represent the
following Class:
The DNCR Class: All people in the United States (1) to whom Urban
Outfitters initiated, or caused to be initiated, more than one text
message within any 12 month period, (2) to their cellular telephone
number, (3) after registering their number on the national Do Not
Call Registry, (4) within the last four years from the filing of
this action through the date of class certification.
And as the lawsuit mentions, this is not the first time that Urban
Outfitters has faced such allegations. Just two years ago, a
similar lawsuit called out Urban Outfitters for DNCR violations,
putting the brand on notice about its alleged non-compliance.
Minor's lawsuit argues that despite this previous legal trouble,
Urban Outfitters continued with its text marketing strategy without
making adjustments to avoid DNCR-listed numbers.
We'll keep our eyes on this one! [GN]
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Minor Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Minor, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v.
Urban Outfitters, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-02001-CEM-RMN (M.D. Fla.,
Nov. 1, 2024), is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 as a result of the Defendants unsolicited text
messages.
The Plaintiff registered their number on the national Do Not Call
Registry ("DNCR") on April 2, 2023. Urban Outfitters sent at least
24 text messages to the Plaintiff after he registered his phone
number on the DNCR. The text messages identify the sender as "UO"
which is short for Urban Outfitters. The text messages contained
hyperlinks that when clicked redirected
www.urbanoufitters.com. This is Urban Outfitters' official website.
The text messages were sent for the purpose of promoting Urban
Outfitters goods for sale. This includes summer goods, shorts, tank
tops, corsets, and more.
The Plaintiff never provided his number 361-244-2159 to Urban
Outfitters, never had a relationship with Urban Outfitters, and
never gave permission for Urban Outfitters to send any type of
communication. Urban Outfitters' text messages are a nuisance and
annoyance to the Plaintiff. The text messages have invaded the
Plaintiff's privacy. The spam has diminished the value of the
Plaintiff's phone and the Plaintiff's enjoyment of life, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff's home, phone, and privacy have been invaded by Urban
Outfitter's non-emergency text messages.
Urban Outfitters, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Philadelphia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mitchell, Esq.
LAWHQ, PC
299 S. Main St. #1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 385-285-1090 Ext. 30135
Email: david.mitchell@lawhq.com
VAZA CONSTRUCTION: Zurita Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vaza Construction
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Luis Zurita, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vaza Construction Corp., Valentin Espejo, Miriam
Candela, Case No. 1:24-cv-07772 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Vaz Construction Inc is a family owned and operated company.[BN]
VILLAGE PRACTICE: Anisimova Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Village Practice
Management Company, LLC. The case is styled as Sofiya Anisimova,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Village Practice Management Company, LLC d/b/a CityMD, Case No.
1:24-cv-07615 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 31, 2024).
The Nature of Suit is stated as Other P.I. for Wiretapping.
Village Practice Management Company, LLC doing business as CityMD
-- https://www.citymd.com/ -- is the largest provider of urgent
cares in New York and New Jersey, with numerous locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec Mitchell Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
VISTA OUTDOOR: M&S Probes Proposed Merger With Czechoslovak Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Vista Outdoor Inc. (NYSE: VSTO), relating to its
proposed merger with Czechoslovak Group a.s. ("CSG"). Under the
terms of the agreement, Vista shareholders will also sell Revelyst
in an all-cash transaction funds managed by Strategic Value
Partners, LLC, and its affiliates. Together, the and the SVP
Transactions will deliver an estimated $45 per share in cash to
Vista Outdoor stockholders
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for November 25, 2024.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vista-outdoor-inc/. 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]
WALGREENS CO: Settles Class Suit Over Generic Drug Overcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Monthly reports that Walgreens has agreed to pay $100
million to settle a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that it
overcharged insured customers for generic drugs over a decade. The
lawsuit claimed that Walgreens routinely charged insured customers
higher prices than those available to members of its Prescription
Savings Club, which offered significantly reduced prices for common
generics without requiring insurance.
The class action lawsuit, filed in Chicago, argued that Walgreens'
insured customers paid more than Prescription Savings Club members,
who paid only a nominal annual fee to access generic drugs at low
prices. Specifically, the savings club provided access to over 500
widely prescribed generics at $5, $10, and $15 for 30-day supplies
and $10, $20, and $30 for 90-day supplies. These prices were
available only to customers paying out of pocket without using
insurance, creating a disparity that the plaintiffs claimed was
unjust for insured individuals.
In a filing last Friday, November 1, attorneys for the plaintiffs
sought court approval for the settlement, hailing it as an
"excellent result" for affected customers. A spokesperson for
Walgreens, however, stated, "We admit no liability and believe
these claims never had any merit. This resolution allows us to
focus on our turnaround strategy that will benefit our patients,
customers, team members, and shareholders."
Allegations of Inflated Reimbursement Rates
The lawsuit contended that Walgreens represented its savings club
prices as the "usual and customary" rates, while allegedly
submitting inflated prices to insurers for reimbursement. This
discrepancy meant that insured customers often paid more in copays
and deductibles than those who purchased medications directly
through the savings club. The suit argued that insured customers
reasonably expected not to be charged more than out-of-pocket
payers, yet they incurred higher costs.
The class action aimed to provide compensation for insured
customers affected by these pricing practices, seeking damages for
purchases dating back to 2007, the year Walgreens launched its
Prescription Savings Club. In August, Walgreens discontinued the
savings club as part of the settlement terms.
Legal Representation and Case Details
The case, known as Russo et al v. Walgreen Co., is filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois under case
number 1:17-cv-02246. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys
Paul Geller from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Joseph Guglielmo
from Scott + Scott, among others. Walgreens' defense team includes
Selina Coleman and Michael Scott Leib from Reed Smith.
The proposed settlement is pending court approval, which, if
granted, will conclude years of litigation and provide financial
redress to customers who were allegedly overcharged. This case
highlights the scrutiny faced by large pharmacy chains over pricing
practices and underscores the complexities surrounding insurance,
out-of-pocket costs, and the potential for disparities in drug
pricing. [GN]
WARNER BROS: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2024 a Second Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal
of a putative securities class action brought in the S.D.N.Y.
against Warner Bros. Discovery and certain of its executives. The
appellate court upheld an order ruling that the plaintiff investors
failed to show that the defendants misled them in disclosures prior
to the industry-defining $43 billion merger of WarnerMedia and
Discovery, Inc., which put under one corporate umbrella ubiquitous
content from HBO, DC Comics, and the Food Network, among other
content publishers. The appellate decision provides important
reassurance to issuers that any post-merger changes to corporate
strategy cannot be used to leverage accurate pre-merger statements
as a vehicle for securities claims.
After the deal closed, the stock price of the new company dropped,
which eventually triggered a putative securities class action in
the S.D.N.Y. against Warner Bros. Discovery and certain of its
executives (among a few other parties).
In February 2024, Weil secured a complete motion to dismiss
victory. Judge Caproni's 29-page opinion granted our clients'
motion in its entirety, including on section 11 strict liability
claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants made false and misleading statements concerning
the legacy WarnerMedia's operations -- including in regards to
subscriber data, third-party content licensing, and
direct-to-streaming release strategy, among other things -- in SEC
filings and other public disclosures in connection with the merger.
Weil led motion to defense briefing on behalf of all of the
defendants.
In our motion to dismiss briefs, Weil argued plaintiffs failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted because none of
the challenged statements was false or misleading. In its ruling,
the Court agreed that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged even a
single false or misleading statement, because all of the challenged
statements were objectively true and the additional context
plaintiffs claim defendants omitted -- context which plaintiffs
notably did not allege WBD was required to disclose -- did not
render those statements misleading.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit and, on November 1, 2024,
just two weeks after Weil's Jonathan Polkes argued the appeal, the
appellate court unanimously affirmed.
The Weil team representing the defendants was led by Jonathan
Polkes, Co-Chair of Weil's global Litigation Department, and
Caroline Zalka, Co-Head of Weil's Securities Litigation practice.
The team included counsel Amanda Pooler and Josh Wesneski, and
associates Milana Bretgoltz, Brigit Crosbie, Nolan DeBrowner,
Daniel Lifton, and Honghu Wang. [GN]
WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Raheel Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------------
AISHA RAHEEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND (NEVADA), LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07742 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.watchesofswitzerland.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.
Watches of Switzerland (Nevada), LLC owns and operates watch show
rooms. The Company offers men's and women's watches, as well as
watch servicing, repair, restoration, battery change, and
reproofing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Tel: (718) 914-9694
WELL BRED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. WELL BRED PREMIUM PET PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-10190 (D.N.J., Oct. 31, 2024) sues the Defendant for its
failure to make its website, https://wellbredonline.com, accessible
to legally blind individuals pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
On Sept. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's
website in search for dry food for his pet. Upon entering the site,
he encountered multiple accessibility issues that made navigation
inefficient. While on the Category page, the Plaintiff attempted to
filter the products, but in the filter menu, all checkboxes were
incorrectly labeled as "Name" checkboxes. Consequently, he was
unable to select a product of interest and, therefore, could not
complete the purchase, the suit alleges.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark
structure, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inadequate focus order, empty links with no destination,
added the suit.
Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.2 Guidelines would
provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal
access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has
engaged in acts of intentional discrimination.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
This lawsuit is aimed at providing legally blind users like the
Plaintiff a full and equal experience.
Well Bred offers a curated selection of high-quality pet supplies
and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
ZEBRA STRATEGIES: Gross Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zebra Strategies,
Inc. The case is styled as Angela Gross, Mark Chhabria,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Zebra Strategies, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-08483-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
7, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Zebra Strategies -- https://zebrastrategies.com/ -- offers market
research and strategic insights, prioritizing the amplification of
marginalized and hard-to-reach populations' voices.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Fax: (212) 868-1229
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***