/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 231 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Mounts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Nordel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Ratliff Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Reavis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Perez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ABF FREIGHT: Gaddis Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ADAMS RESOURCES: M&A Probes Merger With Tres Energy Affiliate AMERICAS 7910: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. BASSETT SERVICES: Initial Disclosures in Hopkins Suit Due Nov. 22 BENDA BILI INC: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLUE CROSS: Bid to Compel Production of Documents Partly OK'd BRILLIANCE LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CALL-ON-DOC: Suit Filed in S.D. California CAMDEN NATIONAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Northway CARING PEOPLE: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE: Marquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CME GROUP INC: Shareholder Class Suit Trial Not Yet Set CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge CVS PHARMACY: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Health Plan Enrollees DALLAS BAPTIST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says DAVENPORT, IO: Removes McDonnell Suit to S.D. Iowa DOSHA FARMS: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website EMPIRE ACCESS: Freida Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Lee Seeks Proper Overtime Wages FERRARA BAKERY: Pollitt Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users GLOBAL TELLINK: Class Settlement in Albert Suit Gets Initial Nod HEIDI WASHINGTON: Smith's Bid for Class Certification Denied HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 28, 2025 IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Must File Class Cert Bid by March 28, 2025 ISAAC OUAZANA: Seeks to Strike Expert's Unsworn Reports JOHNSON, TN: Seeks to Strike References from Class Cert Bid KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Second Class Cert. Bid Tossed KANSAS STAR: Perry FLSA Collective Wins Conditional Certification KE HOLDINGS: Chin Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action KENTUCKY: Denies Access to Abortion Care, Class Suit Says KING COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tucker Due June 30, 2025 LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Rojo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Torres Due June 20, 2025 LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Filing in Griffin Extended to Dec. 19 LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Opposition Under Seal MERRICK GARLAND: Segar Seeks Initial OK of Settlement MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Kreps Seeks to Certify Class of Claimants MOXIE PEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ferrari Suit Claims NATIONAL GRID: Court Revises Class Cert Schedule in Nightingale NATIONAL GRID: Must File Class Cert Opposition Brief by Dec. 6 NCAA: Ray Suit Seeks to Certify Class NCAA: Smart Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action NEW ERA: Conditional Class Certification Bid in Zarate Due Nov. 18 NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Can File Reply Portions Under Seal NEW YORK: Court OK's Caballero Bid for Class Certification NURTURE INC: Seeks More Time File Statement to Keep Docs Under Seal OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ONE POINT: Faces Alicea Suit Over Compromised Customers' Info ONE RAIL: Fuller Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Faces Bartolon Class Suit in Calif. Super. PLAIN-ENGLISH MEDIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Robertson Claims PRO VACATION: Court Extends Conduct of Class Certification RALEY'S: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Sues Over Illegal Business Scheme RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend CIPA Class Suit in California ROCKWELL HOUSE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Agostini Claims ROTHMANS BENSON: Court Grants Bid to Delay Tobacco Suit Settlement RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Cole Bid for Class Certification Denied SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class Claims SCIENCE OF SKINCARE: Miller Sues Over Website's Access Barriers SHEET METAL: Campa Suit Seeks Fina Approval of Class Settlement SIEMENS MOBILITY: Pretrial Dates Extension Bid Denied w/o Prejudice SIRIUS XM: Court Stays Balmores Suit for 60 Days SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by May 30, 2025 ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Can File Narrower Class Definitions ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rugeles Says STEVEN MADDEN: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. TAKEDA PHARMA: Premera Must File Second Amended Class Cert Bids TAKEDA PHARMA: Purchasers Seek to File Sur-Sur Reply Under Seal TEACHERS INSURANCE: Opposition Papers Due Jan. 10, 2025 TIKTOK INC: Sales Reps File Suit Over Employee Misclassification TRUE RELIGION: Dalton Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users UBISOFT INC: Faces Fraud Suit Over Shutdown of Racing Video Game UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims UNITED AIRLINES: Witmer Suit Dismissed with Prejudice UNITED STATES: Conklin Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Deadlines Extended UNREAL LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store VEGAS.COM LLC: Charges Customers Hidden Fees, Chacon Suit Claims VENTURE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hart Suit Claims VEON LTD: Faces Kux-Kardos Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures VIRGIN AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Velocity Frequent Flyer Program VNGR BEVERAGE: Jackson Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Beverages WALMART INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Pay Equity Class Action Lawsuit WESTERN UNION: Faces Personal Data Suit in California Court WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Equal Creditor-Related Suit WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit WISETECH GLOBAL: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors WVMF FUNDING: Bid for Bifurcated Discovery Tossed in Renois Suit ********* 3M COMPANY: Lewis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ----------------------------------------------------------- Woodrow Lewis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05333-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Mounts Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Mounts, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05338-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and thyroid disease as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 3M COMPANY: Nordel Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Stan Nordel, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05354-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 3M COMPANY: Ratliff Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Ratliff, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05334-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with Hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick T. Kuykendall, III, Esq. THE KUYKENDALL GROUP, LLC 23710 US Hwy A-1 Fairhope, AL 36532 Phone: (205) 252-6127 Facsimile: (205) 449-1132 Email: ftk@thekuykendallgroup.com 3M COMPANY: Reavis Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Reavis, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD. CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); Case No. 2:24-cv-05346-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 26, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: 216-815-9000 Facsimile: 216-274-9365 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Perez Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia J. Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION d/b/a ALEC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11569 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 10, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and at least 36,044 Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. In August 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems through an employee email account and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names in combination with Social Security numbers and financial account numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). According to Defendant's notice of the Data Breach provided to state attorneys general and Data Breach victims, Defendant "recently learned that an unknown, unauthorized third party gained access to one ALEC employee email account." Defendant's ensuing investigation ultimately determined "that an unauthorized third party accessed the email account on August 2, 2024," and acquired files containing sensitive customer PII. Although the Data Breach took place on or before August 2, 2024, Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their PII was compromised until approximately October 18, 2024--diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the Data Breach caused. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. The Defendant maintained the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, PII was maintained on and/or accessible from Defendant's network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the PII left it in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant and received banking and financial services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a credit union backed by over $1 billion in assets, with over 31,000 members around the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com ABF FREIGHT: Gaddis Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled FREDRICK GADDIS, individually, and on behalf of others members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. ABF FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV26363, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 8, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09681 to the proceeding. The case arises from Defendants' alleged untimely payment of wages and nonpayment of overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. Headquartered in Arkansas, ABF Freight System, Inc. operates as a less-than-truckload (LTL) freight carrier.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq. Michael A. Pearlson, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627 Telephone: (213) 532-2000 Facsimile: (213) 532-2020 E-mail: ebvicente@HuntonAK.com mpearlson@HuntonAK.com - and - Karen Evans, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 50 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415 ) 975 -3700 Facsimile: (415) 975-3701 E-mail: kevans@HuntonAK.com ADAMS RESOURCES: M&A Probes Merger With Tres Energy Affiliate ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating Adams Resources & Energy, Inc. (NYSE AMERICAN: AE), relating to the proposed merger with an affiliate of Tres Energy LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Adams stockholders will receive $38.00 per share in cash for each share of Adams common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/adams-resources-energy-inc-ae/. 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] AMERICAS 7910: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ---------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. AMERICAS 7910, LLC; and LA FAMOSA HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a CHABELLA MEXICAN RESTAURAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-24416-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 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 Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. 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 therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial juice bar and restaurant businesses each to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and market business and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and market. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property, juice bar, and restaurant business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit 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 is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. AMERICAS 7910, LLC, was and is a Florida Limited Liability Company registered to conduct business in the State of 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 APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANGELA TISDALE and TERRENCE PRATT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, Case No. 24STCV16583, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 6, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09620 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code and the California's Business and Professions Code. Apria Healthcare LLC is a provider of home medical equipment delivery and clinical support doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nathan W. Austin, Esq. Raja A. Hafed, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 341-0404 Email: nathan.austin@jacksonlewis.com raja.hafed@jacksonlewis.com BASSETT SERVICES: Initial Disclosures in Hopkins Suit Due Nov. 22 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY HOPKINS, et al., v. BASSETT SERVICES HEATING & COOLING, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03681-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers entered a preliminary pretrial order as follows: -- Any initial disclosures shall be made by: Nov. 22, 2024 -- Any motion to amend the pleadings or to Jan. 15, 2025 join additional parties shall be filed by: -- If this case is a class action, the parties July 1, 2025 agree that the motion for class certification shall be filed by: The Plaintiffs assert claims for uncompensated wages and unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Ohio law due to Defendants’ alleged failure to pay for all overtime hours at the proper overtime rate and for other off-the-clock work allegedly performed by hourly employees. Plaintiffs bring these claims on behalf of themselves and a proposed collective class. The Defendants deny liability under the FLSA and Ohio law and assert Plaintiffs have been properly compensated for all hours worked. Plaintiffs have made a jury demand. Any proposed protective order or clawback agreement shall be filed with the Court by Dec. 6, 2024. A Word version of the proposed protective order should be sent to deavers_chambers@ohsd.uscourts.gov, for the Undersigned's signature. Any provision related to sealing must comply with S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 5.2.1. Form protective orders are available on the Court's website. Bassett Services offers residential Heating, cooling & plumbing work. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xUJA0r at no extra charge.[CC] BENDA BILI INC: Bunting Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Rasheta Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BENDA BILI INC. d/b/a Sezane, Case No. 1:24-cv-07737 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Courreges provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Sezane.com/us (hereinafter "Sezane.com/us" or "the website"). The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Sezane.com/us, is not equally accessible to blind consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Benda Bili's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. Benda Bili provides to the public a website known as Sezane.com/us which provides consumers with access to a wide range of chic, French inspired fashion products and accessories which can be purchased on the Website with the click of a mouse, among other features.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com BLUE CROSS: Bid to Compel Production of Documents Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE WOLLENBERG; SHELLY INGRAM; and RACHEL WHETSTONE, individually and on behalf of other members of the putative class, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04029-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Teresa James entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents and answers to interrogatories. The Court further entered an order that within 30 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order, Defendant shall produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs' RFP Nos. 1–6 and 8–11 and serve its answers to Interrogatory Nos. 3–4, subject to the further limitations set out above. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion to compel with respect to RFP Nos. 8–11 and Interrogatory No. 4. Defendant has not shown the irrelevancy of all preventive services or established the undue burden or disproportionality of discovery on all preventive services. The scope of discovery shall therefore include all preventive services. The Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 1. However, to the extent Defendant has not responded for the 2023 to present timeframe based on Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint expanding the range of dates, Defendant must supplement its answer to Interrogatory No. 1. Given the partial success of both Plaintiffs and Defendant in this motion, the Court concludes that each party shall bear its own expenses in filing or responding to this motion to compel. The Plaintiffs' and Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) is denied. The Plaintiffs are teachers with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas health insurance policies offered by Defendant. Blue Cross is a health insurer in the state of Kansas. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N8rZrg at no extra charge.[CC] BRILLIANCE LLC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Crumwell, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BRILLIANCE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08524 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.brilliance.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.brilliance.com/, to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal CALL-ON-DOC: Suit Filed in S.D. California ------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Call-On-Doc, Inc. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Call-On-Doc, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02095-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2024). The Nature of Suit is stated as Other P.I. CallonDoc -- https://www.callondoc.com/en/ -- provides primary care services and is a telemedicine centre that offers consultation, prescription refill, and lab testing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany Skye Scott, Esq. Joshua Wilner, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Fax: (925) 407-2700 Email: bscott@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com - and - Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Scott Robert Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Phone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com CAMDEN NATIONAL: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Northway --------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Camden National Corp. (Nasdaq: CAC), relating to its proposed merger with Northway Financial, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Camden common stock will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.83 shares of Northway stock. ACT NOW! The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 17, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/camden-national-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Outbrain Inc. (NYSE: 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. -- Smartsheet Inc. (NYSE: SMAR), relating to its proposed merger with Einstein Parent, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Smartsheet shareholders will be entitled to receive $56.50 in cash per share they own. ACT NOW! The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 9, 2024. Click link for more information: https://monteverdelaw.com/case/smartsheet-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Premier Financial Corp. (Nasdaq: PFC), relating to its proposed merger with WesBanco, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders will receive 0.80 shares of WesBanco common stock per share of Premier Financial stock they own. ACT NOW! The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for December 11, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/premier-financial-corp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE $AME. 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 any of the above listed companies 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] CARING PEOPLE: Ross Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Arlene Alexander Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated CARING PEOPLE NY OPERATING, LLC, CARING PEOPLE INC., STEVEN EAST, and CAROLINA PELLICANI, as individuals, Case No. 2:24-cv-07823 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 11, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") under New York's Wage and Hour Laws ("NYLL"). More specifically, the Plaintiff asserts that the class is entitled in connection with Defendants violation of their statutory obligations to pay overtime compensation, to non-exempt employees, for work in excess of 40 hours per week, at a rate of 1.5 times his/her regular rate of pay. The Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by failing to pay their home health aide employees for all hours worked. Defendants employ aides to stay with people who need home care 24 hours a day, seven days a week because they cannot care for themselves or be left alone. Defendants pay aides for only a set number of hours per day, even though they know that aides work far more, given the needs of those they care for. The Defendants paid aides for only 13 hours per day, regardless of their actual hours. However, Defendants' aides consistently worked far more hours than Defendants paid them for, usually 17.5 hours a day or more. Aides were regularly required to work at night, but Defendants did not pay for this time. The Defendants automatically de ducted five ho Of p time from the aide's compensable hours every 24 hours regardless Of whether aides were required to work during the night and unable to sleep for at least five hours total. Also, even though aides generally were not able to take meal periods throughout the day, Defendants automatically deducted 1.5 hours from aides' compensable hours every 24 hours for meal periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from May 2022 until February 2024. The Defendants operates a home health care agency in Jericho, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shelly A. Leonard, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHELLY LEONARD, P.C. 23 Green Street, Suite 303 Huntington, NY 11743 Phone: (631) 546-7000 Email: sleonard@salpe.law Fran.l.rudich@gmail.com CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces Class Action Over Securities Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. (NYSE: CMG) common stock between February 8, 2024 and October 29, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period") and those who purchased Chipotle call options or sold put options during the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Chipotle investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Chipotle class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30587 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chipotle's portion sizes were inconsistent and left many customers dissatisfied with the Company's offerings; (2) in order to address the issue and retain customer loyalty, Chipotle would have to ensure more generous portion sizes, which would increase cost of sales; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 10, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30587 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] CLEAN CUT LANDSCAPE: Marquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clean Cut Landscape Inc., et al. The case is styled as Jose Manuel Castro Marquez, and on behalf of all otheres similarly situated v. Clean Cut Landscape Inc., Clean Cut Landscape Management, Inc., Does 1-100, Case No. 24CV019418 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Clean Cut Landscape -- https://www.cleancutlandscape.com/ -- is a full service company with the expertise to keep your yard a cut above the rest.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste/ 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4614 Phone: 310-496-5818 Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com CME GROUP INC: Shareholder Class Suit Trial Not Yet Set ------------------------------------------------------- CME Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division has not yet set trial date for shareholder class suit. A putative class action complaint was filed January 15, 2014 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, against CME Group Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. The plaintiffs, certain Class B shareholders of CME Group and Class B members of CBOT, allege breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for violations of their core rights granted in the defendants' respective Certificates of Incorporation. On December 2, 2021, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a damages-only class. No trial date has been set. CME Group Inc., headquartered in Chicago, operates financial derivatives exchanges including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board of Trade, New York Mercantile Exchange, and The Commodity Exchange. CSX CORP: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit Over Fuel Surcharge --------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 20, 2023, that it is facing a consolidated case by individual shippers with regards to a fuel surcharge antitrust litigation. In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The class action lawsuits were consolidated into one case in federal court in the District of Columbia. In 2017, the District Court issued its decision denying class certification. On August 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. In March 2024, the original case was reassigned to the judge in the later-filed case who will now preside over all pre-trial proceedings. The railroads filed motions for summary judgment on July 17, 2024 with briefing to be completed by year-end. CSX Corporation together with its subsidiaries provides rail-based transportation services including traditional rail service, the transport of intermodal containers and trailers, as well as other transportation services such as rail-to-truck transfers and bulk commodity operations. CVS PHARMACY: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Health Plan Enrollees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE, in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX, and JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 13, 2025, will move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order certifying the following class: "All persons currently or previously enrolled in or covered by a health plan since Jan. 1, 2015, in which the prescription drug benefit is or was administered by CVS and who: (i) obtain or obtained HIV/AIDS Medications; and (ii) have been required to participate in the Program with no right to seek reasonable accommodations or notice of their rights, but not including individual claims for personal injury or bodily harm." The case is a disability discrimination class action brought by Plaintiffs John Doe 1, John Doe 2, through his Executor Richard Roe, John Doe 6, and John Doe 7, who are (or in the case of John Doe 2, were) people prescribed HIV/AIDS Medications. The Plaintiffs challenge the Program under the Affordable Care Act's ("ACA") non-discrimination provision, codified at 42 U.S.C. section 18116. CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6z1yfl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Henry C. Quillen, Esq. Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 152 West 57th Street, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com ekallas@whatleykallas.com hquillen@whatleykallas.com amansfield@whatleykallas.com ndorman@whatleykallas.com - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. Benjamin Powell, Esq. Ryan Mellino, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 Facsimile: (310) 392-8874 E-mail: jerry@consumerwatchdog.org ben@consumerwatchdog.org ryan@consumerwatchdog.org DALLAS BAPTIST: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says --------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DALLAS BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08522 (S.D.N.Y., November 8, 2024), arises from Defendant's failure to to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. During Plaintiff’s visits to Defendant's website, the last occurring on October 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Core Short Sleeve Tee - Red from Defendant, and to view the information on the website, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Dallas Baptist University owns and operates the commercial website, https://dbupatriots.com, which offers goods and services that include obtaining information about its athletics, sports teams, schedule of team games, roster of team participants, game statistics, team news, purchasing admission tickets for team sporting events, viewing videos of team sporting events, website terms and conditions, and the sale of online retail goods like university and team merchandise such as T shirts, sweat shirts, hats and other apparel. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DAVENPORT, IO: Removes McDonnell Suit to S.D. Iowa -------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of TIMOTHY J. MCDONNELL; GREAT BEDDING CORP.; IOWA CORPORATION; and PAUL A. KRUTZFELDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF DAVENPORT, IOWA; CORRIN SPIEGEL; and HESCO BASTION, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the District Court of Iowa (Case No. LACE137680) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on Sept. 23, 2024. The clerk of court for the Southern District of Iowa assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00072-SMR-SBJ. The case is assigned to Judge Stephanie M. Rose and referred to Magistrate Stephen B. Jackson, Jr. Hesco Bastion Inc. provides rapidly deployable earth-filled barriers for military protection. The Company manufactures body armor for homeland security, supply security solutions, protect homes against flood, and temporary shelters. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Martha L. Shaff, Esq. 1900 East 54th Street BETTY, NEUMAN & McMAHON, P.L.C. Davenport, IA 52807-2708 Telephone: (563) 326-4491 Facsimile: (563) 326-4498 Email: martha.shaff@bettylawfirm.com DOSHA FARMS: Faces Robles Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- PRIMITIVO ROBLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOSHA FARMS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08411 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.doshafarms.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: missing form labels, links without accessible names, empty buttons, redundant alternative text, and skipped heading levels. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Dosha Farms LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in 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 EMPIRE ACCESS: Freida Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ CONNIE FREIDA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE ACCESS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01088 (W.D.N.Y., November 8, 2024), alleges claims for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law in connection with the Defendant's failure to pay proper overtime wages and premiums. The Plaintiff began working at Empire in February 2023 as a project scheduling manager. In that role, she did not have managerial responsibilities but served as a liaison between the outside plant engineer/MDU engineer (OSP) and the construction team. However, the Plaintiff received only her weekly salary regardless of whether she worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Among other things, the Plaintiff failed to provide the OSPs with wage statements that accurately set forth the basis of pay and the regular and overtime hours worked. Headquartered in Prattsburgh, NY, Empire Access Corporation provides telephone and internet service to residential and business users in Western New York and Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian M. Melber PERSONIUS MELBER LLP 2100 Main Place Tower Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 855-1050 E-mail: bmm@personiusmelber.com - and - Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP 90 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 964-9604 E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Lee Seeks Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- REGINALD LEE, individually and for others similarly situated v. ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01539 (W.D. Pa., November 8, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Engineers and Constructors International, Inc. pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, ECI employed Plaintiff Lee as a Commissioning Specialist from approximately November 2021 until the end of December 2022, in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Throughout his employment, ECI paid Lee according to its straight time for overtime pay scheme. As a result, ECI failed to pay Lee the required "time and a half" overtime premium for the hours he worked over 40 a workweek, in willful violation of the FLSA and PMWA, alleges the suit. Headquartered in Baton Rouge, LA, ECI provides technology and engineering solutions for polymers, designs and develops process plants and industrial facilities around the world for the production of polymers, chemicals and other valuable products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com FERRARA BAKERY: Pollitt Sues Over Website's Barriers to Blind Users ------------------------------------------------------------------- DEREK POLLITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FERRARA BAKERY & CAFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07711 (E.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.ferraranyc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of navigation links, inaccurate adequate labeling of form fields and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ferrara Bakery & Cafe, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com GLOBAL TELLINK: Class Settlement in Albert Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY ALBERT, et al., v. GLOBAL TELLINK CORP., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-01936-LKG (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court preliminarily certifies the following Settlement Class for the purpose of the Settlement Agreement: "All persons and entities that, during the period Jan. 1, 2010 until the date of preliminary approval of this Settlement Agreement, paid: (i) a flat fee of $14.99 through Securus's PayNow program; (ii) a flat fee of $14.99 through GTL's Collect2Card program; (iii) a flat fee of $9.99 through the Securus's Text2Connect program; and/or (iv) a flat fee of $9.99 through GTL's Collect2Phone program"; and The Court also preliminarily holds that the Settlement Class excludes: Defendants and their employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, and successors; co-conspirators; federal, state, and local governmental entities; and the judge, judicial officers, and associated court staff assigned to this case and their immediate family members. Furthermore, the Court appoints the following named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Settlement Class: Ashley Albert, Ashley Baxter, Lupei Zhu, and Rhonda Howard; and appoints the following law firms as Settlement Class Counsel: Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC; Global TelLink is a Reston, Virginia–based telecommunications company. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qLmyHA at no extra charge.[CC] HEIDI WASHINGTON: Smith's Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROBERT SMITH #225908, v. HEIDI WASHINGTON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00638-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sally Berens entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Because Plaintiff is an incarcerated pro se litigant, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not an appropriate representative of a class. Plaintiff simply states that he "represents the interest of the class fairly and adequately," but as in Sanders, supra, he provides no persuasive basis for the Court to depart from the general rule against certifying pro se plaintiffs as class representatives Even if Plaintiff could establish the first three requirements for maintenance of a class action set forth in Rule 23(a)(1)–(3),1 his request is properly rejected on the last requirement, fair and adequate representation by the representative part. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iNMoS9 at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA MOTOR: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 28, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor Corp., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order granting the parties' stipulation: -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification is hereby extended to March 28, 2025. The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Honda Motor is a Japanese public multinational conglomerate manufacturer of automobiles, motorcycles, and battery-powered equipment.[CC] IMMUNITYBIO INC: Salzman Must File Class Cert Bid by March 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al. (RE IMMUNITYBIO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-01216-GPC-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Torres entered a scheduling order regulating discovery and setting deadlines for motion for class certification and other pre-trial proceedings pursuant to rule 16.1(d) of the local rules, the court held a case management conference on Oct. 28, 2024 after consulting with the attorneys of record for the parties and being advised of the status of the case, and good cause appearing: 1. Any motion to join other parties, to Dec. 27, 2024 amend the pleadings, or to file additional pleadings shall be filed by: 2. Counsel shall appear for a video Status Jan. 31, 2025 Conference before Magistrate Judge Valerie E. Torres on: 3. Fact and class discovery are not bifurcated; Feb. 28, 2025 however, all discovery related to class certification must be completed by: 4. Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for March 28, 2025 class certification by: 5. Defendant(s) must file a response to a May 12, 2025 motion for class certification by no later than: 6. Plaintiff(s) must file a reply following June 2, 2025 Defendant(s) response to the motion for class certification no later than: 7. All parties must complete all fact June 27, 2025 discovery by: 8. All expert discovery shall be completed Oct. 17, 2025 by all parties by: ImmunityBio engages in developing therapies and vaccines that bolster the natural immune system to defeat cancers and infectious diseases. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f05MHw at no extra charge.[CC] ISAAC OUAZANA: Seeks to Strike Expert's Unsworn Reports ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GERARD LAYANI, et al., v. ISAAC OUAZANA, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00420-SAG (D. Md.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike the unsworn reports of Plaintiffs' class certification expert Jeffrey Goldshine. The unsworn reports do not set forth facts that "would be admissible as evidence" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). The Defendants incorporate by reference the attached Memorandum of Grounds and Authorities in support of its Motion to Strike the Unsworn Reports of Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert Jeffrey Goldshine. The Plaintiffs have filed their motion for summary judgment and opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment supported by unsworn and inadmissible expert reports, attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit 2. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SLy0Mx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William C. Parler, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. PARLER, JR., LLC 311 Gailridge Road Timonium, MD 21093 Telephone: (410) 832-1885 E-mail: w.parler@parlerlaw.com JOHNSON, TN: Seeks to Strike References from Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.P., H.A., and S.H., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order to disallow Plaintiffs' use, and to strike references from the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification particularly, of the audit or report of attorney Eric Daigle, who was hired by the Defendants to identify potential deficiencies in the policing of sex crimes and make recommendations for improvement –– a remedial measure that cannot be used against the Defendants as evidence of guilt. The Plaintiffs improperly feature this "Daigle Report" prominently in their Motion for Class Certification. This is an improper attempt to use against the City and the individual Defendants an effort to improve the Defendant's practices. Plaintiffs' use of this so-called "Daigle Report" is impermissible under Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. After being sued by Kateri Dahl, who alleged that the Johnson City Police Department ("JCPD") was not properly conducting sexual assault investigations, the City of Johnson City engaged Connecticut attorney Eric Daigle, a consultant and expert on policing issues, to conduct an audit of JCPD's handling of sexual assault investigations and make recommendations for improvement. Mr. Daigle's deposition testimony confirms that his role was limited to that purpose, to make these recommendations for improvement, a quintessential subsequent remedial measure. There is no legitimate purpose for use of the Daigle evidence other than that which is made inadmissible pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 407. In support of this Motion, the Defendants rely on the attached excerpts of the deposition of Eric Daigle, and the accompanying Memorandum of Law. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mHnnFc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel H. Rader IV, Esq. Andre S. Greppin, Esq. MOORE, RADER AND YORK, P. C. Cookeville, TN 38502 Telephone: (931) 526-3311 Facsimile: (931) 526-3092 E-mail: danny@moorerader.com - and - Emily C. Taylor, Esq. WATSON ROACH BATSON & LAUDERBACK Knoxville, TN 37901-0131 Telephone: (864) 637-1700 E-mail: etaylor@watsonroach.com - and - Kristin E. Berexa, Esq. Benjamin C. Allen, Esq. FARRAR BATES BEREXA 12 Cadillac Drive, Suite 480 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 254-3060 E-mail: kberexa@fbb.law ballen@fbb.law - and - Keith H. Grant, Esq. Phillip Aaron Wells, Esq. Laura Beth Rufolo, Esq. ROBINSON, SMITH & WELLS 633 Chestnut Street Suite 700 Republic Centre Chattanooga, TN 37450 Telephone: (423) 756-5051 E-mail: kgrant@rswlaw.com awells@rswlaw.com lrufolo@rswlaw.com - and - K. Erickson Herrin, Esq. HERRIN, BOOZE & MCPEAK Johnson City, Tn 37605-0629 Telephone: (423) 929-7114 E-mail: lisa@hbm-lawfirm.com - and - Jonathan P. Lakey, Esq. BURCH, PORTER & JOHNSON, PLLC 130 North Court Avenue Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 524-5024 E-mail: jlakey@bpjlaw.com KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Roberson Second Class Cert. Bid Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RODERICK ROBERSON, et al., v. THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Case No. 4:22-cv-00358-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order that: (1) Plaintiffs' second motion for class certification, is denied with prejudice, and (2) Plaintiffs' motion to amend the scheduling order, is denied. The Plaintiffs cannot show good cause to amend the scheduling order to permit filing a second motion for class certification at this late stage of the litigation. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is Denied with prejudice because it is untimely, Plaintiffs failed to obtain leave from the Court to file it, and Plaintiffs cannot show good cause to amend the scheduling order to permit a subsequent motion for class certification. Kansas City Southern Railway Company was an American Class I railroad. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3koVy at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS STAR: Perry FLSA Collective Wins Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON V. PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KANSAS STAR CASINO, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-01183-KHV-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an order conditionally certifying a collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defined as follows: "All persons employed as table games dealers and included within a tip pooling arrangement at a casino property operated by a defendant at any time from January 1, 2022, to March 8, 2024." Kansas Star Casino is a casino and hotel in western Mulvane, Kansas. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5M2wT at no extra charge.[CC] KE HOLDINGS: Chin Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEITH CHIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. KE HOLDINGS INC., COLLEEN A. DE VRIES, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC and CHINA RENAISSANCE SECURITIES (US) INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-11196-GHW-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. Certifying this action to proceed as a class action on behalf of the following class: "All persons, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased the American Depository Shares of KE Holdings, Inc. ("KE Holdings") in and/or traceable to KE Holdings' secondary public offering on or Nov. 19, 2020. 2. Appointing Lead Plaintiff to serve as Class Representative of the Class as defined above; and 3. Appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Class Counsel. KE Holdings is a publicly listed Chinese real estate holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8FxkcY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. Erin W. Boardman, Esq. Brent E. Mitchell, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com eboardman@rgrdlaw.com bmitchell@rgrdlaw.com KENTUCKY: Denies Access to Abortion Care, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- A Kentucky woman who is pregnant and seeking an abortion filed a lawsuit on November 13 in Jefferson County Circuit Court seeking to strike down two abortion bans under the state constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination. The case details the severe harms that Mary Poe, who is approximately seven weeks pregnant, is suffering because the government has denied her access to the care she needs. The lawsuit -- Mary Poe v. Russell Coleman, et al. -- also requests the court certify a class of all pregnant Kentuckians who seek access to abortion in the commonwealth but cannot obtain that care because of the abortion bans. The case was brought by a Kentucky woman, referred to as Mary Poe in the filing, who is represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kentucky, and Kaplan, Johnson, Abate & Bird, LLP. Statement from Mary Poe, plaintiff in class-action lawsuit: "I am about seven weeks pregnant, and I have decided that ending my pregnancy is the best decision for me and my family. I feel overwhelmed and frustrated that I cannot access abortion care here in my own state, and I have started the difficult process of arranging to get care in another state where it's legal. This involves trying to take time off work and securing child care, all of which place an enormous burden on me. This is my personal decision, a decision I believe should be mine alone, not one made by anyone else. I am bringing this case to ensure that other Kentuckians will not have to go through what I am going through, and instead will be able to get the health care they need in our community." Statement from Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project: "We are honored to bring this case alongside our client, Mary, to fight to restore abortion access in Kentucky. As we have seen in Kentucky and across the country, abortion bans have wreaked havoc on people's lives. Those who can scrape together the resources may be able to travel out of state to get care, but others will be forced to carry their pregnancies to term against their will, often at great cost to their health or lives. We hope that the court will finally strike down for good Kentucky's blatantly unconstitutional abortion bans." Statement from Amber Duke, executive director for the ACLU of Kentucky: "The ACLU of Kentucky has been fighting tirelessly to restore abortion access in the commonwealth since the day Roe fell. We applaud Mary's bravery in partnering with us to renew this legal fight. We know Kentuckians support access to abortion care without government interference. We recently marked the second anniversary of voters rejecting anti-abortion Amendment 2. While that victory at the ballot box kept an abortion ban out of the state constitution, this lawsuit, brought by a person actively seeking care, is the next step in overturning the bans currently in place. We hope for an ultimate victory that aligns with the will of the people and overturns these unconstitutional bans." A prior lawsuit challenging the same bans was brought by abortion providers on behalf of their patients in 2022, in the days after Roe v. Wade was overturned. After a trial court initially blocked the bans, then-Attorney General Daniel Cameron appealed the decision and a court allowed the bans to go into effect shortly after. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which issued a ruling in February 2023 saying that abortion providers could not raise the constitutional rights of their patients in cases brought in Kentucky courts. [GN] KING COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tucker Due June 30, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tucker, et al., v. King County, Case No. 2:24-cv-00002 (W.D. Wash., Filed Jan. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for extension of time and enters the following revised case schedule: -- Fact Discovery Deadline is: Feb. 28, 2025 -- Expert Report(s) for Party Bearing March 31, 2025 Burden of Proof due: -- Responsive Expert Report(s) due: March 30, 2025 -- Expert Discovery Completed by: May 31, 2025 -- Class Certification Motion to be June 30, 2025 filed by: The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Rojo Seeks Conditional Collective Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as YESINIA URIBE ROJO, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. LAKEVIEW SECURITY & INVESTIGATIONS, INC., ANTHONY D'GRACIA, and ERIC SCOTT, Case No. 1:24-cv-05729-JPO-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional collective certification and for court facilitation of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). Lakeview is a New York based, full-service Security and Investigative Firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=optV4X at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 LEXISNEXIS RISK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Torres Due June 20, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O., v. LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02504-MHC-RDC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Regina Cannon entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Amendments to the pleadings submitted LATER THAN THIRTY (30) DAYS after the date of this Order will not be accepted without opposing party consent or good cause shown. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 2. The deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class certification is June 20, 2025. Defendant's opposition response must be filed by July 21, 2025, and Plaintiff's reply must be filed by Aug. 11, 2025. 3. The fact-discovery deadline is Sept. 18, 2025. Plaintiff must disclose expert witnesses and reports within 30 days after the close of fact discovery. Defendant, in turn, must disclose its expert witnesses and reports within 30 days after Plaintiff's expert disclosure. The expert discovery deadline is Dec. 17, 2025. 4. Any motions for summary judgment must be filed by Jan. 16, 2026, and if no motions for summary judgment are filed the proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order will be due on that date. LexisNexis offers identification and authentication solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wGsC0y at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert. Filing in Griffin Extended to Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Judy Griffin et al., v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 2:24-cv-06312-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order granting the Plaintiffs a 30-day extension to file their motion for class certification by Dec. 19, 2024. Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center of the nation’s film and television industry. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1reIMR at no extra charge.[CC] LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A&O Shearman, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on October 30, 2024, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana adopted the September 30, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kayla Dye McClusky and granted with prejudice a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a telecommunications company (the "Company") and certain of its officers (the "Individual Defendants"). In re Lumen Techs., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 3:23-00286 (W.D. La. Sept. 30, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly making false statements regarding the Company's fiber optics expansion project. The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice, holding that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead any actionable misstatements or omissions or loss causation and that plaintiffs failed to plead a strong inference of scienter as to any defendant. Lead plaintiffs, representing a putative class of stockholders who allegedly purchased the Company's common stock between September 14, 2020, and February 7, 2023 (the putative "Class Period"), alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's ability to complete its fiber optics expansion project, which allegedly caused the Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false statements claiming that the Company's new fully digital platform received a high customer satisfaction score, as well as allegedly false statements about the Company's plan to build out its fiber network in a number of locations (i.e., to increase its "enablements"). According to the amended complaint, defendants' alleged "scheme to falsely inflate the growth" of the Company's expansion project "began to unravel" when the Company allegedly admitted to the existence of stressed supply chains and labor issues, followed by the Company's CEO and CFOs' abrupt departures. According to plaintiffs, the Company's new CEO issued a statement revising its enablements forecast to "8 million to 10 million" locations, down from the 14-23 million locations the Company initially anticipated. Plaintiffs alleged that, upon issuing this statement, the Company's stock price fell. The Court first held that plaintiffs failed to plead any actionable material, misrepresentation, or omission. In so holding, the Court found that certain alleged statements about the Company's plans were merely optimistic language amounting to inactionable puffery, and that although the Company initially disclosed that it anticipated accelerating the fiber expansion project, plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that any defendant knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that these plans would not come to fruition. The Court further found that the Company's disclaimers on continuing uncertainties regarding the impact of Covid-19 and other market disruptions were sufficiently detailed to constitute forward-looking statements that are protected under the PSLRA's safe harbor. As to loss causation, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege any causal relationship between the purportedly false statements and plaintiffs' alleged economic loss, and specifically noted that plaintiffs failed to allege any "corrective disclosure" pertaining to several of the categories of alleged misrepresentations. The Court then turned to the issue of scienter. Because the Court determined that plaintiffs did not adequately allege facts to plausibly demonstrate that defendants made any material, misstatement, or omission, the Court found that plaintiffs "have not alleged facts to support scienter either individually or holistically." Although the Court accepted at the pleading stage that the fiber optics expansion plan was an important aspect of the Company's future growth prospects, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege that any defendant made any statement that was inconsistent with the alleged importance of that plan. The Court also found unconvincing plaintiffs' arguments that executive officer departures or the alleged pressure that the Company was under to meet expectations during the Class Period were sufficient to create a strong inference of scienter. For the same reasons that the Court found that plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable misrepresentation or scienter, the Court rejected plaintiffs' theories of scheme liability. Specifically, the Court held that plaintiffs did not allege any facts sufficient for the Court to draw a reasonable inference that the Company intentionally committed a deceptive or manipulative act in furtherance of the purported fraudulent scheme. Finally, having found no primary liability under Section 10(b), the Court rejected plaintiffs' derivative control liability claim under Section 20(a). [GN] MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Unredacted Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for leave to file under seal the unredacted version of the Defendants' supplemental opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the supporting declaration of Harris Label, and supporting exhibits because they contain references to confidential information The Confidential Filings contain or will contain references to information that has either been produced by third parties as confidential or designated by either side as Confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order entered by Magistrate Judge Reid on Dec. 21, 2022. The at-issue protected-as-Confidential information consists of certain Voyager customer data derived from access to Voyager's customer database, as well as data from Named Plaintiffs' user accounts. While the redactions are and will be limited only to specific user data, and most of the Confidential Filings will not be redacted, Defendants seek permission to file unredacted versions of the Confidential Filings under seal so that this Court is fully informed and has before it all relevant Confidential information prior to ruling on the Motion.2 The proposed duration of the requested sealing is for/until the later of (i) the parties consenting to unsealing of the information designated as Confidential, or (ii) an unsealing of any of the information designated as Confidential pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order. Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality. He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8nh5EZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher E. Knight, Esq. Esther E. Galicia, Esq. Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq. FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A. Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor 1395 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 789-9200 Facsimile: (305) 789-9201 E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com egalicia@fowler-white.com atifford@fowler-white.com - and – Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC 334 Minorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (850) 825-4334 E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com - and – Stephen E. Best, Esq. Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq. Daniel L. Sachs, Esq. Jonathan D. White, Esq. BROWN RUDNICK LLP 601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone (202) 536-1755 E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com dsachs@brownrudnick.com jwhite@brownrudnick.com MERRICK GARLAND: Segar Seeks Initial OK of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY W. SEGAR, et al., v. MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, et al., Case No. 1:77-cv-00081-EGS (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) provisionally certifying the class for settlement purposes, (2) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, (3) provisionally appointing plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel for the class and the EEOMC members as class representatives for settlement purposes, (4) approving and directing distribution of notice to class members, and (5) setting a schedule for the fairness hearing and final approval process. The settlement provides for a payment of $12,568,035.60 by defendants to plaintiffs, an amount that provides all backpay and nearly all front pay and prejudgment interest that plaintiffs sought in their individual-relief motion. In exchange for this payment, plaintiffs would release their pending claim for damages incurred as a result of defendants’ lack of compliance with the Court’s 1982, 1999, and 2019 orders directing DEA to implement nondiscriminatory, validated procedures for GS-14 and -15 level promotions, set forth in their individual relief motion. The Plaintiffs also relatedly agreed to withdraw their individualrelief motion within two business days of a final approval of the settlement. The proposed damages class also satisfies Rule's certification requirements. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), plaintiffs move to provisionally certify a new class limited to those Black DEA agents who applied for one or more GS-14 or -15 level positions, made the Best Qualified List for at least one such position at any time between January 21, 1993, and May 2, 2022, and were not selected for one or more of those positions. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=osr0qE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven F. Cherry, Esq. Daniel S. Volchok, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 663-6000 Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT: Kreps Seeks to Certify Class of Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Kreps, et al v. Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-12020-MAG-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class for purposes of Count 1 and Count II as class action and authorizing the Plaintiff to send notice of the case to the following class: "All unemployment claimants who suffered suspensions of benefits for 21 days or more after a determination of eligibility without any Agency determination or redetermination of the reasons to suspend benefits." Michigan Unemployment manages the unemployment insurance program in Michigan. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Liuipu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Blanchard, Esq. BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 929-4313 E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com - and- Edward Macey, Esq. 8000 E. Jefferson Ave. Detroit, MI 48214 Telephone: (3130 926-5616 E-mail: emacey@uaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Shannon W. Husband, Esq. Debbie Taylor, Esq. John Gehring, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL-LABOR DIVISION 3030 W. Grand Blvd., Ste. 9-600 Detroit, MI48202 Telephone: (313) 456-2200 E-mail: HusbandS1@Michigan.gov Taylord8@Michigan.gov GehringJ1@Michigan.gov MOXIE PEST: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Ferrari Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA FERRARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOXIE PEST CONTROL; and MOXIE PEST CONTROL LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02617-KAS (D. Colo., Sept. 23, 2024) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for making unsolicited marketing calls. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella. Moxie Pest Control is a pest control company, offering services treating common household pests like ants and cockroaches. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Kaufman P.A. 237 South Dixie Highway 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com NATIONAL GRID: Court Revises Class Cert Schedule in Nightingale ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nightingale v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 13, 2019), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting motion to revise class certification schedule. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. National Grid provides utility services. The Company distributes electricity and gas energy.[CC] NATIONAL GRID: Must File Class Cert Opposition Brief by Dec. 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT NIGHTINGALE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NATIONAL GRID USA SERVICE COMPANY, INC., FIRST CONTACT LLC, and IQOR US INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-12341-NMG (D. Mass.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order revising the existing schedule governing class certification: Event Date Defendants to file brief in opposition to Dec. 6, 2024 Motion for Class Certification: Plaintiff to file reply brief (if any): Dec. 20, 2024 Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for At this Court's Class Certification: convenience Rule 16 Conference: At this Court's convenience after issuance of this Court's decision on class certification National Grid distributes electricity and gas energy. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eKNIXi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. Stephen Taylor, Esq. LEMBERG LAW, LLC 43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com taylors@lemberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: David G. Thomas, Esq. Angela Bunnell, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP One International Place, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 310-6000 E-mail: david.thomas@gtlaw.com bunnella@gtlaw.com NCAA: Ray Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR, PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on March 3, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order certifying the following class: "All persons who, from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of "volunteer coach," as designated by NCAA Bylaws." The Plaintiffs will also move the Court for the appointment of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Kirby McInerney LLP, and Fairmark Partners, LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) and for the appointment of Mr. Robinson, Ms. Sebbane, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ray, and Mr. Barajas as Class Representatives. The Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in March 2023 and the operative Second Amended Complaint in October 2024. NCAA moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in May 2023. In a Memorandum and Order issued in July 2023, this Court denied NCAA's motion to dismiss, ruling that "plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to show a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act." The Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine Sebbane, and Rudolph Barajas are former coaches for NCAA Division I athletic teams. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and one in Canada. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3jSbRE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. Amanda M. Williams, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3299 - and - Darryl J. Horowitt, Esq. COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP 499 West Shaw, Suite 116 Fresno, CA 93704 Telephone: (559) 248-4820 - and - Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. Marko Radisavljevic, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 600 B Street, Suite 2110 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 784-1442 - and - Leonard B. Simon, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON P.C. 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 818-0644 - and - Michael Lieberman, Esq. Jamie Crooks, Esq. Yinka Onayemi, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G Street NW, Suite 400E Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (818) 585-2903 NCAA: Smart Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SMART AND MICHAEL HACKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, an unincorporated association; Case No. 2:22-cv-02125-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on March 3, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order certifying this case as a class action. Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the following proposed class should be certified: "All persons who worked as a "volunteer coach" as defined by National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") Division I Bylaw 11.01.6 in men's baseball from November 2018 to July 1, 2023 for the following NCAA Division I schools: United States Air Force Academy; University of Alabama; University of Albany; Appalachian State University; University of Arizona; Arizona State University; University of Arkansas; Arkansas State University; University of Arkansas - Little Rock; West Point – United States Military Academy; Auburn University; Austin Peay State University; Brigham Young University; Ball State University; Baylor University; Bellarmine University; Belmont University; Binghamton University; Boise State University; Boston College; Bradley University; Brown University; Bryant University; Bucknell University; California State University – Northridge; California State University – Bakersfield; California Polytechnic State University; California State University – Fullerton; University of California – Berkeley; California Baptist University; Canisius University; University of Central Arkansas; Central Michigan University; College of Charleston; University of North Carolina – Charlotte; Chicago State University; University of Cincinnati; Clemson University; Coastal Carolina University; Columbia University; University of Connecticut; Coppin State University; Cornell University; Creighton University; Dallas Baptist University; Dartmouth College; Davidson College; University of Dayton; Delaware State University; Utah Tech University (f/k/a Dixie State); Duke University; East Carolina University; East Tennessee State University; Eastern Kentucky University; University of Evansville; University of Florida; Florida Atlantic University; Florida Gulf Coast University; Florida International University; Florida State University; Fordham University; California State University – Fresno; Furman University; George Mason University; George Washington University; University of Georgia; Georgia Southern University; Georgia State University; Georgia Institute of Technology; Gonzaga University; Grand Canyon University; Harvard University; University of Hawaii at Manoa; Hofstra University; College of the Holy Cross; University of Houston; Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne (now known as Purdue University-Fort Wayne); University of Illinois; Illinois State University; Indiana University; Indiana State University; Iona University; University of Iowa; Jacksonville University; Jacksonville State University; James Madison University; University of Kansas; Kansas State University; Kennesaw State University; Kent State University; University of Kentucky; Louisiana State University; La Salle University; Lafayette College; Lehigh University; Liberty University; Lipscomb University; California State University – Long Beach; University of Louisiana – Lafayette; University of Louisiana - Monroe; Louisiana Tech University; University of Louisville; Loyola Marymount University; University of Maine; Manhattan College; Marist College; Marshall University; University of Maryland; University of Maryland - Eastern Shore; University of Massachusetts; University of Memphis; Mercer University; University of Miami (Florida); University of Michigan; Michigan State University; Middle Tennessee State University; University of Minnesota; Mississippi State University; University of Missouri; Missouri State University; Monmouth University; Murray State University; North Carolina State University; New Jersey Institute of Technology; United States Naval Academy; University of Nebraska; University of Nevada; University of New Mexico; New Mexico State University; Niagara University; Norfolk State University; University of North Alabama; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University; University of North Florida; University of Northern Colorado; Northwestern University; University of Notre Dame; The Ohio State University; University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Old Dominion University; University of Mississippi; University of Oregon; Oregon State University; University of the Pacific; University of Pennsylvania; The Pennsylvania State University; Pepperdine University; University of Pittsburgh; University of Portland; Princeton University; Purdue University; Queens University; University of Rhode Island; Rice University; University of Richmond; Rider University; Rutgers University; California State University – Sacramento; Saint Joseph's University; Saint Louis University; Saint Mary's College; Sam Houston State University; Samford University; University of San Diego; San Diego State University; University of San Francisco; San Jose State University; Santa Clara University; Seattle University; Siena College; University of South Alabama; University of South Carolina; University of South Florida; Southern Illinois University; University of Southern Mississippi; St. Bonaventure University; University of St. Thomas – Minnesota; Stanford University; Stetson University; Stony Brook University; Texas Christian University; Tarleton State University; University of Tennessee; University of Texas; Texas A&M University; University of Texas - San Antonio; Texas State University; Texas Tech University; The Citadel – Military College of South Carolina; Troy University; Tulane University; University of Alabama – Birmingham; University of California – Davis; University of California – Irvine; University of California – Riverside; University of California - San Diego; University of California - Santa Barbara; University of Central Florida; University of California – Los Angeles; University of Maryland – Baltimore County; University of Massachusetts – Lowell; University of North Carolina – Greensboro; University of Nevada – Las Vegas; University of Southern California; University of Texas – Arlington; University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley; University of Utah; Utah Valley University; Virginia Commonwealth University; Virginia Military Institute; Valparaiso University; Vanderbilt University; University of Virginia; Virginia Tech University; Wake Forest University; University of Washington; Washington State University; West Virginia University; Western Carolina University; Western Kentucky University; Wichita State University; Wofford College; Yale University." Excluded are the officers, directors, and employees of Defendants, and all judicial officers presiding over this action and their immediate family members and staff, and any juror assigned to this action. National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States, and one in Canada. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FDD3vt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. Steven M. Berezney, Esq. Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY, LLC 505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com sberezney@koreintillery.com gbroshuis@koreintillery.com NEW ERA: Conditional Class Certification Bid in Zarate Due Nov. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zarate, et al., v. New Era Foods One, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09806-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order granting a two-week extension on the deadline to file a motion for conditional certification. -- The motion for conditional class certification is due Nov. 18, 2024. -- The Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due Dec. 9, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nx5nnP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Valeria Fernandez, Esq BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, New York 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 Facsimile: (516) 706-4692 E-mail: BellLG.com NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Can File Reply Portions Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall-Landers, v. New York University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting Plaintiff's request to file portions of reply in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and certain accompanying documents under seal. The submissions are accepted as filed. New York University is a private research university in New York City. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iuqUvU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah n. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com NEW YORK: Court OK's Caballero Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caballero v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Case No. 9:20-cv-01470 (N.D.N.Y., Filed Dec. 2, 2020), the Hon. Judge Brenda K. Sannes entered an order granting motion for class certification. -- The summary judgment motions have been decided, class notice will be required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B) regardless of whether this matter is resolved through settlement or trial. -- The Court has reviewed defense counsel's status report1. If the parties are not prepared to schedule a settlement conference by Nov. 22, 2024, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the formulation of a class list and drafting of a class notice, and to file by Dec. 6, 2024, a joint status report with proposed dates for filing a proposed class notification form and proposed procedure for the resolution of this action. The nature of suit states Prisoner Petitions -- Habeas Corpus -- Civil Rights. The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision is the department of the New York State government that maintains the state prisons and parole system. The New York State prison system encompasses 44 prisons funded by the state government.[CC] NURTURE INC: Seeks More Time File Statement to Keep Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the Defendant's deadline to file a statement and/or declaration to keep documents under seal from Nov. 1, 2024 to Nov. 8, 2024. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, which included 55 exhibits filed under seal, and Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party's Material Should be Sealed. Although Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on October 25, 2024, Defendants were unable to access the unredacted version of the motion, and the 55 exhibits, until Oct. 28, 2024 because of technical issues. In light of Defendant's inability to access the unredacted version of the Motion for Class Certification and the 55 exhibits, the Parties agreed to continue Defendant's deadline to file a statement and/or declaration to keep documents under seal from Nov. 1, 2024 to Nov. 8, 2024. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tu95TE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hayley Reynolds, Esq. Seth A. Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine St. #1250, San Francisco, CA 94111 The Defendant is represented by: Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Shannon E. Dudic, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com shannon.dudic@us.dlapiper.com OKLAHOMA PETROLEUM: Dinsmore Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Oklahoma Petroleum Allies, LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-00350-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final approval of: the Proposed class action Settlement; the Notice of Settlement and Plan of Notice; and the Proposed Initial Plan of Allocation. The Court already certified the following Settlement Class: "All non-excluded persons or entities who, during the Claim Period: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant for oil-and-gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells; or whose proceeds were sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendant; and (2) who have not already been paid statutory interest on the Late Payments." A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, § 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and thereafter not later than the last day of the second succeeding month after the end of the month within which such production is sold). Late Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner under Okla. Stat. tit. 52, 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); or (b) prior period adjustments. Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its parents, affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Okla-homa; (3) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. § 1702(2). Oklahoma Petroleum is an oil & energy midstream company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xfcTAI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reagan E. Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, OBA #33306 BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com – and – James U. White, Jr., Esq. WHITE, COFFEY AND FITE, P.C. Oklahoma City, OK 73154 Telephone: (405) 842-7545 E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com ONE POINT: Faces Alicea Suit Over Compromised Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------- LISA ALICEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE POINT HR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00188-DLB-CJS (E.D. Ky., November 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its computer systems following a data breach between July 3, 2023, and February 14, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. One Point HR Solutions, LLC is a provider of human capital management solutions based in Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN, PLLC 19 N. Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Telephone: (270) 821-0656 Facsimile: (270) 825-1163 Email: jwhitfield@wcfjustice.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ONE RAIL: Fuller Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Laborers ----------------------------------------------------- DAVID FULLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONE RAIL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11518 (N.D. Ill., November 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay for all hours worked, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt laborer from approximately April 10, 2023, through approximately July 14, 2024. One Rail Group, LLC is a railway services and equipment company doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Fradin, Esq. 8 N. Court St. Suite 403 Athens, OH 45701 Telephone: (847) 986-5889 Facsimile: (847) 673-1228 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N. Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 816-8696 Email: james@simonsayspay.com PARTNERS PERSONNEL: Faces Bartolon Class Suit in Calif. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Partners Personnel Management Services LLC. The case is captioned as ARRIAGA OFELIA BARTOLON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC; and WE PACK IT ALL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV24605 (Cal. Super, Los Angeles Cty., Sept. 23, 2024). Partners Personnel Management Services LLC is a full-service staffing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Moon Law Group 725 S. Figueroa St., Ste 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 320-0519 Fax: (213) 232-3125 PLAIN-ENGLISH MEDIA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Robertson Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ERIN ROBERTSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLAIN-ENGLISH MEDIA, LLC d/b/a PLAIN-ENGLISH HEALTH CARE d/b/a STRATEGIC HEALTH CARE MARKETING; and USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC d/b/a USHEALTH GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00429-MMD-CSD (D. Nev., Sept. 23, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. lain-English Media, LLC, is an independent publishing company based in Alameda, CA. The company provides practical guidance that helps readers in their roles as professionals and volunteer community leaders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gustavo Ponce, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 6940 S. Cimarron Road, Suite 210 Las Vegas, NV 89113 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: gustavo@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com PRO VACATION: Court Extends Conduct of Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHALINA STONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PRO VACATION GROUP LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00085-WMR (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge William Ray, II entered an order granting the Plaintiff Shalina Stone's motion for 30-day extension to conduct class certification and damages discovery. The Plaintiff shall have 30 days from Oct. 10, 2024, to conduct Class certification and damages related discovery, including third-party discovery as necessary. The Plaintiff is permitted to seek a default judgment, both as to the individual Plaintiff and/or the putative Classes, within 30 days after completion of Class Certification and damages discovery. Pro Vacation is a seller of travel services for United States and Caribbean. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fYz0Hp at no extra charge.[CC] RALEY'S: Smith Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled SAUNDRA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RALEY'S and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV019351], was removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 5, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03064-JDP to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against the Defendant for alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. Raley's is a retail company doing business in California. [BN] The Defendant is 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 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 Telephone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: nkreeger@seyfarth.com RICOH USA: Mike the Printer Sues Over Illegal Business Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------- MIKE THE PRINTER, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RICOH, USA, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08192-JFW-JC (C.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2024) is an action arising out of an illegal scheme by the Defendant to overcharge its customers. According to the complaint, Ricoh sells printing equipment to its customers in exchange for fees based on a per-page charge. Ricoh imposes a contractual ceiling of 15 percent on the annual increases to the per-page charge after an initial period, but has adopted an internal, secret, and undisclosed policy of actually imposing 25 percent annual increases on its customers. This internal companywide policy is not only a blatant violation of the contract Ricoh has with its customers, but also evinces a fraudulent intent not to perform the contractual ceiling it agreed to from the inception of the contract, says the suit. Ricoh USA, Inc. produces and distributes printing equipment. The Company offers printers, copiers, interactive whiteboards, electronic devices, inks, and parts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Panish, Esq. Jesse Creed, Esq. Bernadette M. Bolan, Esq. PANISH | SHEA | RAVIPUDI LLP 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700 Los Angeles, California 90025 Telephone: (310) 477-1700 Facsimile: (310) 477-1699 Email: panish@panish.law jcreed@panish.law bbolan@panish.law RINGCENTRAL INC: Continues to Defend CIPA Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ RingCentral Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the CIPA class suit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. On June 16, 2020, Plaintiff Meena Reuben ("Reuben") filed a complaint against the Company for a putative class action lawsuit in California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a class of individuals for whom, while they were in California, the Company allegedly intercepted and recorded communications between individuals and the Company's customers without the individual's consent, in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") Sections 631 and 632.7. Reuben seeks statutory damages of $5,000 for each alleged violation of Sections 631 and 632.7, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified amount of damages. The parties participated in mediation on August 24, 2021. On September 16, 2021, Reuben filed an amended complaint. The Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 18, 2021, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings on January 23, 2023. The Court overruled the Company's demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and the parties then engaged in discovery. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment ("MSJ") on February 16, 2024. An evidentiary hearing was held on August 2, 2024 and a hearing on the MSJ was held on October 11, 2024, whereupon, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgement. Based on the information known by the Company as of the date of this filing and the rules and regulations applicable to the preparation of the Company's condensed consolidated financial statements, it is not reasonably possible to provide an estimated amount of any such loss or range of loss that may occur. RingCentral's counsel at Orrick declined to comment at this time. RingCentral and the plaintiff's counsel at Goldstein Borgen did not immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN] ROCKWELL HOUSE: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Agostini Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKWELL HOUSE, PBC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08426 (S.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York State Civil Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.frankdarling.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rockwell House, PBC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, PC 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com ROTHMANS BENSON: Court Grants Bid to Delay Tobacco Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Janis Ramsay, writing for toronto.com, reports that the Ontario Superior Court has approved a request to delay a proposed class action settlement put forward by the big three tobacco companies in Canada. A mediator with Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. submitted a 1,437-page plan in Ontario Superior Court Oct. 17, proposing the companies pay approximately $24.7 billion to provinces and territories, along with $4.1 billion to Quebec tobacco users' loved ones following an ongoing class-action lawsuit. The companies were back before the court Oct. 31, and lawyers for JTI-Macdonald Corp. asked Ontario Superior Court Chief Justice Geoffrey Morawetz to wait a few weeks before approving the motion. The company said the plan can't actually be implemented as written, and changes are needed. The settlement proposal does yet not break down the amount each company would be responsible to pay. The delay was being requested as creditors involved with the Quebec class-action lawsuit are preparing to vote on the proposal. Creditors are currently set to vote on the Quebec Plan of Administration issue no later than Dec. 12. Morawetz said any discussions over outstanding issues can still take place before and after the creditors' meeting. The proposal, nicknamed the Pan-Canadian Claimants' Compensation Plan, has still not been approved by a judge. If it is approved, some Canadians may be eligible for compensation. Visit tobaccoclaimscanada.ca for details. [GN] RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Cole Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BERNARD COLE, v. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00651-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Kelly Fitzgerald Pate recommends that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. 2. This case be referred to the undersigned for further proceedings. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) will bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waive the right of the party to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Proceeding pro se, Jason Cole, an inmate at the Russell County Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of conditions to which inmates are allegedly subjected at the facility. The Plaintiff requests class certification of this case on behalf of all similarly situated inmates detained at the Russell County Jail and seeks to act as the class representative. The Court construes this request as a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiff is a pro se inmate unschooled in the law who seeks to represent the interests of inmates currently incarcerated at the Russell County Jail. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7mB34j at no extra charge.[CC] SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Anderson Seeks to Certify Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, and SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Dec. 12, 2024, will move the Court to enter an order under Rule 23(a) and Rule (b)(1), and (b)(2) or alternatively Rule 23(b)(3): 1. Certifying Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI of the Complaint on behalf of the following Class: "All current and former employees of the City and County of San Francisco who took a leave or an absence from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period." 2. Certifying Count XII of the Complaint on behalf of the following Pension Subclass: "All current and former City employees who (a) took a period of leave from their employment with the City to engage in qualified military service during the Settlement Class Period while they were members of the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan, (b) requested reemployment by the City after the period of military leave, and (c) who, under the Memorandum of Understanding between their union and the City that applied during the period of military leave, were entitled to have the City 'pick-up' all or part of the employee contribution to the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System Pension Plan on behalf of the employee." 3. Certifying Counts XIII and XIV of the Complaint on behalf of the following Long-Term Leave Subclass: All current and former City employees who took leave for a period greater than 30 days from their employment at the City to engage in qualified active-duty military service pursuant to the Annual Salary Ordinance during the Settlement Class Period. 4. Appointing Devon Anderson and Beverly L. Sweeney as Class Representatives of the Class and the Long-Term Leave Subclass and appointing Plaintiff Beverly L. Sweeny as Class Representative of the Pension Subclass; 5. Appointing R. Joseph Barton of Barton & Downes LLP and Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel. The Plaintiff Devon Anderson was hired as a Transportation Operations Specialist for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency on approximately August 17, 2015, and has worked for the SFMTA Metro Rail and Street Operations Division as a Field Manager. San Francisco, officially the City and County of San Francisco, is a commercial, financial, and cultural center within Northern California. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YBg4IP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Joseph Barton, Esq. BARTON & DOWNES LLP 1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200 Washington DC 20009 Telephone: (202) 734-7046 E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com - and - Michael J. Scimone, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com SCIENCE OF SKINCARE: Miller Sues Over Website's Access Barriers --------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCIENCE OF SKINCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01078-JLS (W.D.N.Y., November 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://isclinical.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Science Of Skincare, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SHEET METAL: Campa Suit Seeks Fina Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN CAMPA, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; BENESYS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01760-MMC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Nov. 15, 2024, will move the Court for an order granting final approval to the class action settlement reached in this case and preliminarily approved by the Court on July 26, 2024 and confirming the certification of the settlement class. The Plaintiff Stephen Campa brought this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated retirees who had their pensions incorrectly approved for unreduced early retirements based on an alleged error in Plan administration, were paid those pensions for several years, and then had their pensions reduced when the error was discovered. Plaintiff alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and sought, among other remedies, reformation of the Plan and equitable surcharge. The proposed settlement is an excellent and timely recovery for Class members that will significantly improve their personal financial security while also protecting the assets of the Plan as a whole, all at no cost to the Class members themselves. The proposed settlement bears all the hallmarks of a fair, adequate, and reasonable settlement. On July 26, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement and directed that the Class receive notice. A fairness hearing to consider final approval of the settlement is set for Nov. 15, 2024. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ax1Iu7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Keenley, Esq. Emily A. Bolt, Esq. Brian H. Kim, Esq. BOLT KEENLEY KIM LLP 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite 517 Berkeley CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 225-0696 Facsimile: (510) 225-1095 SIEMENS MOBILITY: Pretrial Dates Extension Bid Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Khamkoth Keopadubsy, v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01412-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying without prejudice the parties' joint request for an extension of all pretrial deadlines until six months after an order resolving the plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification "in the interest of conserving party resources." -- The Court said that it may be renewed when a motion has in fact been docketed. The court cautions the parties that pretrial deadlines set in a Rule 16 order can be extended only for "good cause," Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), which is primarily a question of the requesting parties' "diligence," Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). -- In this case, deciding whether one or more parties have been "diligent" will include a review of what has occurred since this action was filed in July 2020, more than four years ago. IT IS SO Siemens is a provider of sustainable and efficient transport solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qxtYvl at no extra charge.[CC] SIRIUS XM: Court Stays Balmores Suit for 60 Days ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY BALMORES, JUSTIN BRASWELL, DEBORAH GARVIN, and THEA ANDERSON, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order that: 1. These proceedings be stayed in their entirety for a period of 60 calendar days from the date of entry of this Order; 2. All deadlines proposed in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report And Discovery Plan be continued by 60 calendar days; and 3. The parties shall provide the Court with a joint status report no less than seven (7) calendar days prior to the expiration of the stay. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against Defendant Sirius in this civil action captioned Balmores v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. Sirius operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yGlNUX at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 523 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric P. Stephens, Esq. Lee A. Armstrong, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street, 34th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3658 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: epstephens@jonesday.com laarmstrong@jonesday.com SOUTHERN ILLINOIS: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert by May 30, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hansen v. Southern Illinois Hospital Services, Case No. 3:24-cv-00221 (S.D. Ill., Filed Jan. 31, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel entered an order granting joint motion for extension of time. -- The Plaintiff shall file her motion for class certification on or before May 30, 2025. -- The Defendant shall respond on or before June 20, 2025. -- The Plaintiff may file a reply brief on or before July 7, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Southern Illinois provides healthcare services. The Company offers cancer care, emergency medicine, imaging and radiology.[CC] ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Can File Narrower Class Definitions ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al., v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Audrey Fleissig entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Of Civil Procedure 23(C)(1)(C) seeking leave to file a second renewed motion proposing narrower class definitions and for class certification. The Court further entered an order that the Clerk of Court shall detach and file the following: A. ECF No. 390-1 as Plaintiffs' second renewed motion proposing narrower class definitions and for class certification; B. ECF No. 390-2 as Plaintiffs' memorandum in support of the above- noted motion; and C. ECF Nos. 390-3 through 390-35, ECF Nos. 389-1 through 389-8, and ECF Nos. 392-1 through 392-5 as Plaintiffs' exhibits attached to their memorandum in support and filed under seal only to the extent the Court has previously allowed. The Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' second renewed motion proposing narrower class definitions and for class certification shall be filed within 30 days of this Memorandum and Order, and any reply shall be filed no later than 21 days after the response is filed. The Plaintiffs assert that the newly proposed modified classes are simply a smaller subset of the previously certified heat subclasses and are based on an identical theory of liability and set of facts as the previous classes. On May 25, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs' first renewed motion for class certification of the following four classes of pre-trial and post-conviction detainees who claimed to have experienced inhumane conditions while detained at the City's Medium Security Institution ("MSI"): Narrowed Pretrial Conditions Class: "All persons who were pretrial detainees in MSI between Nov. 13, 2012 and July 1, 2018." Narrowed Pretrial Heat Subclass: "All pretrial detainees who were detained in dormitories in MSI between Nov. 13, 2012 and July 24, 2017 on days where the ambient air temperature in St. Louis, Missouri equaled or exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit." Narrowed Post-Conviction Conditions Class: "All persons who were post-conviction detainees in MSI between Nov. 13, 2012 and July 1, 2018." Narrowed Post-Conviction Heat Subclass: "All post-trial detainees who were detained in dormitories in MSI between Nov. 13, 2012 and July 24, 2017 on days where the ambient air temperature in St. Louis, Missouri equaled or exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit." St. Louis is an independent city in the U.S. state of Missouri. It is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NEil4w at no extra charge.[CC] ST. LOUIS, MO: Cody Seeks to Certify Two Rule 23 Classes -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES CODY, et al., individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Case No. 4:17-cv-02707-AGF (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying two Rule 23(b)(3) classes, comprising individuals detained at St. Louis's Medium Security Institute in a pretrial or post-conviction status and exposed to extreme heat with inadequate mitigation. Additionally, the Plaintiffs propose more narrowly drawn classes, limited to individuals who were detained in the Medium Security Institute's dormitories for seven or more days where the ambient temperature equaled or exceeded 88 degrees Fahrenheit. Because of the egregious and widespread evidence of constitutionally violative actions by City officials and because of the narrowly defined and ascertainable class, Plaintiffs can meet the rigorous standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Plaintiffs James Cody, Michael Mosley, and Eddie Williams, seek to be appointed as class representatives for the Pretrial Heat Class and Plaintiff Callion Barnes seeks to be appointed as class representative for the Post-Conviction Heat Class. The Plaintiffs also request that Nathaniel Carroll, Maureen Hanlon, and Blake Strode of ArchCity Defenders, and Matthew Riley, Dennis Kiker, and Tia Nguyen of DLA Piper LLP (US) be appointed as Class. St. Louis is an independent city in the U.S. state of Missouri. It is located near the confluence of the Mississippi and the Missouri rivers. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8XWlcY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake A. Strode, Esq. Jacki J. Langum, Esq. Nathaniel R. Carroll, Esq. Maureen G. V. Hanlon, Esq. Brianna Coppersmith, Esq. ARCHCITY DEFENDERS, INC. 440 N. 4th Street, Suite 390 Saint Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (855) 724-2489 ext. 1012 Facsimile: (314) 925-1307 (fax) E-mail: bstrode@archcitydefenders.org jlangum@archcitydefenders.org ncarroll@archcitydefenders.org mhanlon@archcitydefenders.org bcoppersmith@archcitydefenders.org - and - Dennis Kiker, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2525 East Camelback Road, Ste 1000 Phoenix, AZ Telephone: (480) 606-5100 Facsimile: (480) 606-5101 E-mail: dennis.kiker@dlapiper.com STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rugeles Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JHON RUGELES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STATEWIDE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF NY, INC.; and WAYNE NOEL, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06728-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 26, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Rugeles was employed by the Defendants as a carpenter. Statewide Construction Services of NY, Inc. owns and operates a construction company, and provide residential and commercial construction services throughout New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. [BN The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon A. Thomas, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. THOMAS, PC 1 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 650 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (678) 862-9344 Facsimile: (678) 638-6201 Email: brandon@overtimeclaimslawyer.com STEVEN MADDEN: Wilkins ADA Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------- The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. STEVEN MADDEN, LTD., Case No. 719177/2024, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 6, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-07757 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Steven Madden, Ltd. is a fashion accessory company in New York. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Rusie, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 611 Commerce Street, Suite 2803 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 565-1661 Email: Jennifer.Rusie@jacksonlewis.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Premera Must File Second Amended Class Cert Bids --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al., v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong J. Joun entered an order as follows: (1) By Nov. 12, 2024, Premera's counsel must file "Second" amended motions to certify class, memoranda in support, affidavit and exhibits, on both No. 23-cv-12918-MJJ and No. 21-cv-11057-MJJ; (2) together with motions for leave to file the appropriate materials under seal; and (3) a status report either indicating that the original and first amended motions to certify class can be terminated in light of the filing of the second amended motions or explaining why all three motions should remain active. If the motion to seal is granted, counsel for Premera must provide court staff with the sealed materials that are to be docketed with the second amended class certification pleadings. In the future, requests to file amended pleadings should be made by motion on the docket. This order is entered without prejudice to Takeda's right to object to the docketing of the second amended class certification pleadings and any new sealing orders. The nature of suit states antitrust litigation. Takeda is engaged in research and development, manufacturing, sales and marketing, and import and export of pharmaceutical products.[CC] TAKEDA PHARMA: Purchasers Seek to File Sur-Sur Reply Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the direct purchasers ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file under seal portions of their Sur-Sur Reply in Support of motion for class certification (Sur-Sur Reply), and Memorandum in opposition to Takeda's motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Rena Conti. Direct purchasers' Sur-Sur Reply, and Memorandum summarize and/or quote and attach documents that have been designated as "Confidential," and thus, are subject to the stipulated protective order entered in this case. More specifically, these filings summarize and quote information from Dr. Rena Conti's expert report, her rebuttal report, and the transcript of her deposition and Dr. Celeste Saravia's expert report and the transcript of her deposition. The portions of these filings that summarize and/or quote confidential material are redacted. Direct purchasers request permission to file under seal the redacted portions of their Sur-Sur Reply, and Memorandum. Direct purchasers propose that the order sealing the Sur-Sur Reply, and Memorandum be lifted only upon further order of the Court and that the Sur-Sur Reply, and Memorandum be kept in the Clerk's non-public information file during any post-impoundment period. Takeda's counsel has assented to this motion. Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PKAcfy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erin C. Burns, Esq. Jessica R. MacAuley, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. Daniel Polonsky, Esq. Mark T. Vazquez, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Sq., 5th Fl. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: erinb@hbsslaw.com Jessicam@hbsslaw.com tom@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com danielp@hbsslaw.com markv@hbsslaw.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Stephanie E. Smith, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC 20 Rahling Cir. Little Rock, AR 72223 Telephone: (501) 821-5575 E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. Eamon P. Kelly, Esq. John P. Bjork, Esq. SPERLING & SLATER, LLC 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 641-3200 E-mail: jvanek@sperling-law.com dgermaine@sperling-law.com ekelly@sperling-law.com jbjork@sperling-law.com - and - John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall St. Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 Facsimile: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com TEACHERS INSURANCE: Opposition Papers Due Jan. 10, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORRAINE H. LUCIANO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TEACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA – COLLEGE RETIREMENT EQUITIES FUND (TIAA-CREF) et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-06726-RK-JBD (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge J. Brendan Day entered an order that pre-class-certification summary judgment motions shall be filed according to the following "bundling" protocol and schedule: 1. The Court directs the parties to refrain from filing their motion papers on the docket until all briefing has been completed; 2. The parties are instead directed to serve their briefs on each other in accordance with the following schedule: Motions for summary judgment shall be served on or before Nov. 20, 2024; Opposition papers shall be served on or before Jan. 10, 2025; and Reply papers shall be served on or before Jan. 31, 2025; 3. Once all papers have been exchanged, the parties then shall file their respective motion papers via CM/ECF. TIAA-CREF is an American financial services organization that is a private provider of financial retirement services. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rPutlx at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Sales Reps File Suit Over Employee Misclassification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emilie Shumway of HRDive reports that a group of inside sales representatives filed a lawsuit against TikTok on Monday, November 11, alleging they were denied overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Connell, et. al. v. ByteDance Inc., d/b/a TikTok). -- The workers, categorized as business development managers, agency development managers, agency partnership managers, brand partnership managers, client solutions managers "and others with similar job titles and/or duties," said they were improperly classified as exempt and that TikTok allegedly acted "willful[ly] and in bad faith." -- TikTok and its owner, ByteDance, have faced compliance backlash from employees in the past; last year, two Black employees filed charge documents with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination and retaliation. TikTok did not respond to a request for comment on the FLSA allegations by press time. Dive Insight: The FLSA allows employers a range of exemptions from complying with the law's minimum wage and overtime pay requirements, including workers employed in bona fide executive, administrative or professional (EAP) roles, computer workers and outside sales employees. Employers may qualify for an outside sales exemption for a worker if they meet two criteria: 1) the employee primarily makes sales or obtains orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer, and 2) the employee must be "customarily and regularly" engaged away from the employer's place of business. The TikTok workers alleged they performed inside sales work for the company, working out of TikTok's Austin, Texas, office, in Virginia, and from their own home offices. Their work "entailed calling potential and current clients, sending messages on LinkedIn, and sending emails, all with the goal of selling and upselling Defendant's products," according to the complaint. "Outside sales does not include sales made by mail, telephone or the Internet unless such contact is used merely as an adjunct to personal calls," the U.S. Department of Labor clarified in a fact sheet on the exemption. "Any fixed site, whether home or office, used by a salesperson as a headquarters or for telephonic solicitation of sales is considered one of the employer's places of business, even though the employer is not in any formal sense the owner or tenant of the property." Employers often encounter challenges when it comes to navigating exemptions and employee classification. In May, for example, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a group of car dealership workers referred to as "sales associates" were not exempt from overtime under the "automobile salesperson" exemption -- an industry-specific exemption provided by the FLSA -- because they spent most of their time booking appointments for customers to view the cars and "an appointment . . . is not itself an essential component of the commercial exchange of a vehicle," the court noted. Earlier this year, the DOL further complicated FLSA exemptions by adopting a final rule raising the minimum salary threshold for EAP employees from $35,568 to $43,888. [GN] TRUE RELIGION: Dalton Seeks Website's Equal Access to Blind Users ----------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUE RELIGION APPAREL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-04142 (D. Minn., November 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.truereligion.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: use of visual cues as the only means of conveying information, not clear purpose of certain links and buttons from their context or associated narration, nonfunctional links/buttons, failure to alert screen readers to pop-up window content, and presentation of content with an illogical and confusing tab and focus order, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. True Religion Apparel, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, headquartered in Gardenia, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndselaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com UBISOFT INC: Faces Fraud Suit Over Shutdown of Racing Video Game ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fraser Brown of PS Gamer reports that two Californians are suing Ubisoft over fraud, and several other complaints, due to the publisher's shutdown of The Crew in April, which left players unable to access even the singleplayer portion of this online-only racing game. While the lawsuit (spotted by Polygon) only includes two plaintiffs, the claims are also being made on behalf of other players as well, with the plaintiffs hoping the court will approve it as a class action. Both plaintiffs purchased The Crew late into its lifecycle, in 2018 and 2020, and picked up physical copies. This plays a significant role in the lawsuit. "Plaintiff Cassell was under the impression that by purchasing the physical Game disk," the lawsuit reads, "he acquired the full bundle of ownership rights over the Game, and that he would be able to use the disk to play the game whenever he wanted in the future." Ubisoft misled the plaintiffs, the lawsuit claims, through language on the game's packaging. "Defendants also reinforced this belief by including language on the Product packing stating that the online portion of the Game could be retired, thereby representing to consumers that an offline portion of the Game existed that would be unaffected. Second, through the totality of the Product’s packaging, Defendants falsely represented that The Crew itself was encoded onto physical disks consumers could buy or the digital files consumers could pay to download." By not making it clear they were purchasing a digital licence, or that they could lose access to the entirety of the game, the plaintiffs' lawyers argue that Ubisoft has violated California's Unfair Competition Law and committed fraud. Here's the full list of claims: -- Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act -- Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law -- Violation of California's False Advertising Law -- Fraud -- Fraudulent Inducement -- Fraudulent Misrepresentation -- Breach of Express Warranty -- Breach of Implied Warranty The lawsuit highlights other instances where online games were shut down, but not before the developers deployed a patch to let players continue to access them, including Ubisoft games like Assassin's Creed 2 and 3. After the initial backlash after The Crew's shutdown was announced, Ubisoft also promised to include offline versions of The Crew 2 and The Crew Motorfest. Just not the original game. It's an exhaustive lawsuit that includes the history of The Crew, the definition of gaming servers, quotes that show the consumer backlash, and background on YouTuber Ross Scott's Stop Killing Games campaign. Upon reading it, however, the thing that really stood out was the absolutely wild analogy the lawyers use to get the court to understand what Ubisoft's shutdown of The Crew's servers actually means. Apparently it's just like Ubisoft breaking into your home and stealing bits of your pinball machine. "Imagine you buy a pinball machine, and years later, you enter your den to go play it, only to discover that all the paddles are missing, the pinball and bumpers are gone, and the monitor that proudly displayed your unassailable high score is removed. Turns out the pinball machine manufacturer decided to come into your home, gut the insides of the pinball machine, and remove your ability to play the game that you bought and thought you owned. Even though you paid full price to receive this game, you never knew that the manufacturer could come in one day, and, without your control, leave you with a skeleton of what you thought you paid for." The complaint doesn't seem unreasonable, but the comparison with pinball machine theft is baffling, not least because considerably more people play online games than own pinball machines. This is not some weird, esoteric case that needs a pinball analogy to ground it and make it more relatable. The value disparity makes it all the stranger. The lawsuit doesn't mention how much the plaintiffs paid for their copies of The Crew, though at least one of them purchased it during a sale—regardless, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a copy of The Crew in 2018 did not cost quite as much as a pinball machine. Quite a few sections elevate this lawsuit above your standard, extremely dry legal document. There's a section, for instance, that tries to break down the history of videogames, titled 'Video Games; From Past to Present'. It begins like a high school essay: "Home-use videogame consoles emerged in the 1970s." It then goes on to explain the rise of console cartridges, the birth of MMOs and the use of servers. The section dedicated to the consumer backlash also contains a few gems, including tweets like, "What about the crew 1? Mfs the crew 1 looks way better than the crew 2". And "Crew 1 just dead then?". I bet Twitter user MGS never thought their tweet calling Ubisoft motherfuckers would make it into a legal document. Despite the lawsuit over-egging things a bit—"Plaintiff Cassell suffered, and continues to suffer, economic injuries"—the plaintiffs are primarily looking to get a refund: "The return of the full premium price will ensure that Plaintiffs are in the same place they would have been in had Defendants' wrongful conduct not occurred". However, it also asks the court to require Ubisoft to "disgorge all revenues obtained as a result of their violations of the UCL [Unfair Competition Law]", as well as cover the legal fees. That bumps up the cost to Ubisoft considerably, and that's just with two plaintiffs. If it becomes a successful class action, Ubisoft is going to be facing a steep bill. [GN] UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) resulting from allegations that Unisys may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Unisys 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. To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9648 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 22, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had charged four companies, including Unisys, with "making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions." Further, the SEC also charged Unisys with disclosure controls and procedures violations. On this news, Unisys stock fell 8.6% on October 22, 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] UNITED AIRLINES: Witmer Suit Dismissed with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------- United Airlines, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 16, 2024, that on October 14, 2024, the court entered a stipulation and order providing that a putative stockholder class action complaint, styled as "Colleen Witmer v. J. Scott Kirby, et al.," C.A. No. 2024-0375-PAF, (April 10, 2024, Del. Ch.) will be dismissed with prejudice and the case will be closed. John Scott Kirby is currently serving as CEO of United Airlines. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of directors of the company breached its fiduciary duties by adopting a certain Tax Benefits Preservation Plan. The company claimed that the claims were not meritorious when filed because said plan was a reasonable response to the threat that the company’s net operating loss carryforwards could be permanently limited or lost under Treasury Regulations. On May 8, 2024, the parties stipulated to dismissal, which the court so ordered, based on their agreement that the Board would approve and disclose an amendment to the plan. On April 23, 2024, the company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K disclosing an amendment which revised the definitions of "Beneficial Owner," "Beneficially Own" and "Beneficial Ownership" under the Plan and made other conforming changes. On May 8, 2024, the court dismissed the action as moot and retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of deciding any application by the plaintiff's counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. To avoid the cost, burden, and uncertainty inherent in litigation, the company has agreed to pay $600,000 in fees and expenses to the plaintiff's counsel. In entering the order, the court was not asked to review, and did not pass judgment on, the amount or reasonableness of the attorneys' fees and expenses. United Airlines Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. is a Chicago based airline company. UNITED STATES: Conklin Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TADE. CONKLIN, et al., v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:23-cv-07122-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sidney Stein entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216{b). a. The motion for conditional certification and court-authorized notice is granted, and the proposed collective of "all present and former Postal Inspectors who have attended BIT since October 16, 2021 ," is conditionally certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). b. The Plaintiffs are directed to send notice of this action in accordance with this Order to the following collective of potential plaintiffs: all present and former Postal Inspectors who have attended Basic Inspector Training since October 16, 2021. c. The Notice for Postal Inspectors of Lawsuit Against the United States Postal Service (the "Notice") attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Modified FLSA Collective Action Notice and Proposed Order, is approved to be issued to the above-identified collective of potential plaintiffs. d. The Plaintiffs are directed to send the Notice via U.S. Mail, email, and text message to each member of the collective of potential plaintiffs. e. The opt-in period shall extend for 60 days from the date of this Order. f. Plaintiffs are directed to send a reminder notice via U.S. Mail, email and text message to any Collective member who has not yet returned a Consent to Become Party Plaintiff form 30 days after the Notice for Postal Inspectors of Lawsuit Against the United States Postal Service has been sent. U.S. Postal provides mail processing and delivery services to individuals and businesses in the U.S. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q8ghIV at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Cert Deadlines Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to continue class certification-related deadlines and for leave to exceed word limits in both 2:23-cv-00846-GW-MAR ("Favell I") and 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR ("Favell II"). The parties jointly propose an alternative schedule to reflect the continuation of oral arguments on Defendant's motions to exclude Plaintiffs' class certification experts. Both parties seek leave to exceed the word limits in the local rules but have competing positions. To ensure sufficient time for the Court to enter a final ruling on Defendant’s Rule 702 motions and for the parties to take those rulings into account when briefing class certification, the parties jointly move for a continuance of the class certification-related deadlines. Specifically, the Parties respectfully request to modify the scheduling order as described below. The proposed schedule will better accommodate the parties and will avoid either party’s holiday conflicts. A scheduling order may be modified for good cause. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(2). Good cause exists to continue the schedule. Providing additional time for the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification after the Rule 702 Hearing will prevent prejudice to Plaintiffs’ case, as the Court’s decision on the Rule 702 motions will affect the briefing on class certification. A proposed Order granting this unopposed Motion is attached for the Court’s convenience. Event Current Proposed New Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Nov. 8, 2024 Jan. 3, 2025 Certification: USC's Response to Plaintiffs' Dec. 9, 2024 Feb. 3, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Plaintiffs' Reply in Support Dec. 23, 2024 Feb. 17, 2025 of Motion for Class Certification: Court Hearing and Oral Jan. 9, 2025 Feb. 24, 2025 Argument on Motion for Class Certification: University of Southern California is a private institution that was founded in 1880. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTxugQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anna Haac, Esq. Shilpa Sadhasivam, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com - and - Eric Rothschild, Esq. Tyler Ritchie, Esq. Chris Bryant, Esq. Madeline Wiseman, Esq. NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL DEFENSE NETWORK 1701 Rhode Island Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 734-7495 E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org tyler@defendstudents.org chris@defendstudents.org The Defendant is represented by: Michael L. Mallow, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 285-8330 Facsimile: (424) 204-9093 E-mail: mmallow@shb.com UNREAL LLC: Frost Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLARENCE and TAMMY FROST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UNREAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-04147-PJS-LIB (D. Minn., November 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiffs and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiffs and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: use of visual cues as the only means of conveying information, not clear purpose of certain links and buttons from their context or associated narration, nonfunctional links/buttons, failure to alert screen readers to pop-up window content, and presentation of content with an illogical and confusing tab and focus order. The Plaintiffs and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Unreal LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, headquartered in Saint Paul, Minnesota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndselaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com VEGAS.COM LLC: Charges Customers Hidden Fees, Chacon Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL CHACON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VEGAS.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02088 (D. Nev., November 7, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Nevada Revised Statutes. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of advertising fee-less ticket prices to get consumers to shop on its platform, but later charges hidden junk fees. According to the complaint, after consumers input their credit card information, billing information, and ticket delivery information, the Defendant sneaks in a service fee on the very final confirmation screen. As a result, it tricks consumers into paying fees they never noticed and never agreed to, says the suit. Vegas.com, LLC is a ticketing company based in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: sbogdanovich@bursor.com - and - Michael Gayan, Esq. KEMP JONES, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: (702) 385-6000 Email: m.gayan@kempjones.com VENTURE GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Hart Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY HART, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. VENTURE GLOBAL LNG, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02006 (E.D. Va., November 8, 2024), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Venture Global LNG, Inc. Plaintiff Hart has worked for Venture Global at its liquefied natural gas facility in Port Sulphur, Plaquemines Parish, LA from approximately July 2024 through September 2024. Throughout his employment, Venture Global misclassified Plaintiff as an independent contractor to avoid paying him overtime wages. Instead, Venture Global paid Hart straight time for overtime, says the suit. Headquartered in Arlington, VA, Venture Global LNG, Inc. produces of North American LNG. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com VEON LTD: Faces Kux-Kardos Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures --------------------------------------------------------------- Veon Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 17, 2024, that it is currently facing a November 4, 2015 class action lawsuit against VEON and certain of its then current and former officers by Charles Kux-Kardos, on behalf of himself and other investors in the company alleging certain violations of the U.S. federal securities laws in connection with the company’s public disclosures relating to its operations in Uzbekistan. On December 4, 2015, a second complaint was filed by Westway Alliance Corp. that essentially asserted the same claims in connection with the same disclosures. On April 27, 2016, the Southern District of New York consolidated the two actions and appointed Westway as lead plaintiff. On December 9, 2016, Westway filed its first amended complaint. On September 19, 2017, the court granted VEON’s motion to dismiss it in part. On February 9, 2018, VEON filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to remaining allegations of the FAC, and all the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the claim. On April 13, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims against one of the individual defendants and, on August 30, 2018, the court dismissed the claims against all of the remaining individual defendants. On May 17, 2019, VEON filed a motion for judgement on the pleadings, arguing that Westway lacked standing as a result of the September 19, 2017 order because Westway had not purchased any securities on or after the date of the earliest alleged misstatement. On May 21, 2019, the Rosen Law Firm submitted a letter to the court on behalf of Boris Lvov seeking leave to file a motion to intervene and substitute Lvov as lead plaintiff. On 17 June 209, Westway filed its opposition to the May 2019 Motion and on April 17, 2020, the court denied Westway's motion and ordered said motion to proceed. On March 31, 2020, VEON’s motion for judgement on the pleadings was denied without prejudice. On April 14, 2020, Westway filed its second Amended Complaint. On May 15, 2020, VEON filed a motion to dismiss it, which the court granted on March 11, 2021, holding that VEON had no duty to disclose information concerning its internal controls as of the start date of the class period, and that Westway therefore lacked standing to bring any claims against VEON as lead plaintiff or otherwise. The court reopened the lead plaintiff selection process and, on April 29, 2022, appointed Lvov as lead plaintiff and granted Lvov leave to file an amended complaint. Lvov filed a third Amended Complaint on February 22, 2023. On May 10, 2023, the court denied Lvov's motion for discovery and granted VEON leave to file a motion to dismiss portions of the complaint. On September 30, 2024, the court granted VEON’s motion to dismiss portions of the complaint in part, dismissing with prejudice its newly alleged false statements as time-barred under the statute of repose, and denying the motion without prejudice with respect to the newly alleged corrective disclosures. The court requested further briefing from the parties on whether the new corrective disclosures were linked to the dismissed new false statements or to statements previously held actionable. Lvov’s supplemental briefing was due October 7, 2024, and VEON’s reply was due October 14, 2024. VEON is a provider of connectivity and internet services offering its services to customers in Pakistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan. VIRGIN AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Velocity Frequent Flyer Program ---------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Neilson, writing for australianaviation.com.au, reports that Virgin investors have successfully added Velocity Frequent Flyer to a class action against the airline over an alleged failure to reveal its true financial position before it entered voluntary administration. Despite concerns that the bondholders presently have a "barely arguable" case against Velocity, the Federal Court granted leave to add the frequent flyer program to the Virgin class action. This action, brought by law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth and lead applicant Matheson Property Group (MPG), alleged the airline failed to disclose its actual financial position to investors in a November 2019 notes prospectus to raise $325 million. Shortly afterwards, the COVID-19 pandemic reached Australia and Virgin entered voluntary administration with $5 billion in debts. While joining Velocity would "somewhat expand and . . . complicate the issues" to be determined in the proceedings, Justice Michael Lee said MPG's bid should be accepted because "there is at least a coherent basis" to assert Velocity was aware of the alleged omissions. "There is no 'smoking gun' in the possession of MPG which demonstrates knowledge or falsity [by Velocity's company secretary] or any other natural person or persons of representation (a fortiori omissions) that can be attributed to Virgin," Justice Lee said. "However, there are pleaded and particularised circumstances that MPG alleges inferences can be drawn to such knowledge." In submissions before the Federal Court, MPG alleged Velocity made its loan available to Virgin, regularly extended its maturity date and size of its facility, and permitted Virgin to treat the drawn and undrawn loan balance as part of its unrestricted cash. MPG also alleged Velocity had "requisite knowledge" because it was aware of the terms of the loyalty trust deeds, the investment policy, Virgin's "cash balance from month to month", and the prospectus. Further, the lead applicant alleged Sharyn Page, Velocity's company secretary, was also company secretary of Virgin and attended board meetings where the treatment of the Velocity loan was discussed. "Although it is possible to say that as presently articulated the case is not a compelling one, it is not my place to speculate as to what the evidence may reveal," Justice Lee said. "Moreover, I do not consider, with my present state of knowledge, that I can be satisfied that the articulated case against Velocity has no reasonable prospect of success." The matter has been listed for a case management hearing in March 2025 to fix a hearing date. [GN] VNGR BEVERAGE: Jackson Sues Over Mislabeled Soda Beverages ---------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA JACKSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VNGR BEVERAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-06666-HSG (N.D. Cal., Sept. 23, 2024) alleges that the Defendant sells mislabeled soda beverages branded as "Poppi", which it labels and markets as beneficial to overall health, and specifically gut health. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the labeling of Poppi is false or highly misleading for several reasons. Poppi is a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB), containing up to 100 percent of its calories from free and added sugar, and there is a vast body of scientific evidence demonstrating that consuming sugar-sweetened beverages harms rather than supports overall health -- and digestive health in particular. The Plaintiff would not have purchased Poppi if she knew that the labeling claims were false and misleading in that Poppi does not provide the claimed benefits and consuming it actually harms overall health and digestive health, says the suit. VNGR Beverage LLC manufactures non-alcoholic beverage consumer products, such as prebiotic soda drink through online platform. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Melanie R. Monroe, Esq. Trevor Flynn, Esq. Peter Grazul, Esq. FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC 2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 215-1741 Email: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com mmonroe@fmfpc.com tflynn@fmfpc.com pgrazul@fmfpc.com WALMART INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEVANE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC. f/k/a UNOPPOSED WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709-ECM-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order permitting it to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's class certification motion and its accompanying exhibits under seal. Walmart states that portions of its Opposition and its accompanying exhibits, will contain evidence that is marked as "Confidential" pursuant to the Northern District of Alabama's Confidentiality Order. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 4, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aSm5tw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Cole R. Gresham, Esq. STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP 100 Brookwood Place, Seventh Floor Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 868-6000 Facsimile: (205) 868-6099 E-mail: cgresham@starneslaw.com WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Pay Equity Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten of Deadline reports that just over six months before the Walt Disney company was scheduled to go to trial in a potentially $300 million pay equity class action, the parties have come to a deal. As always in these things, details are confidential with a Motion for Preliminary Approval expected to be filed by the plaintiff's attorneys before November 18. Though that date may be extended by a week or so to get every T crossed and every I dotted. Still, if all goes to plan, the settlement will be addressed and approved in an January 10 2025 hearing in LA Superior Court before Judge Elihu M. Berle. A dead letter office now, a May 5, 2025 trial was put on the court calendar back in June. Initiated by Disney staffers LaRonda Rasmussen and Karen Moore in April 2019, the suit alleged that the then and now Bob Iger-run company knowingly violated the Fair Employment & Housing Act and California's Equal Pay Act by paying female employees less than male employees. Neither Disney reps nor plaintiffs' lead lawyer Lori Andrus responded to request for comment from Deadline on the tentative settlement, which was first revealed in a DTLA hearing on October 1. However, while the pay out to the class of over 10,000 women across the Mouse House empire isn't up around the $300 million mark, the final sum is in the eight figures at the very least, I hear. That's a far cry from Disney's insistence in October 2029 that "The Disney Companies categorically deny that they pay any female employee less than her similarly situated male coworkers and will vigorously defend themselves against each Plaintiff's individual claims." "But that is all this case is–an assortment of individual claims, based on highly individualized allegations," Disney's outside attorneys at Paul Hasting LLP added in words that might feel a little too harsh now, all things considered. Certified as a class action in December 2023, the gender-centric case was anticipated to encapsulate more than 12,000 female Disney employees. As the parties fought over discovery and document requests, a formal class notice was issued on April 25 this year and sent out to probable plaintiffs via regular mail and email. The case was estimated to encompass up to $150 million in lost wages from 2015 to today. The class certification doubled that estimation. With the tentative settlement, first reported by Puck, it is worth pointing out the class action and any compensation does not include women employed at Hulu, ESPN, Pixar and previously Fox assets like FX or National Geographic. Bouncing on a stock up 11% this year so far, Disney issues its Q4 earnings on November 14. Having rolled out a 2025 slate of Thunderbolts, Captain America: Brave New World and more in the past week, Iger will surely have a lot to talk about. This now cauterized suit will almost certainly not be something the past and current CEO wants to get into, at least not until it is a 100% done deal. At least Iger can take credit privately for getting this case off the table before the new Disney CEO takes over right at the end of 2026, whoever that might be. [GN] WESTERN UNION: Faces Personal Data Suit in California Court ----------------------------------------------------------- The Western Union Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2024, that on September 30, 2024, the court granted a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint against the company's subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc. (WUFSI). In December 2022, a purported class action complaint was filed against several money transfer business defendants, including the company, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that these defendants violated the federal Right to Financial Privacy Act and California's Financial Information Privacy Act. The United States Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were also named as defendants. The original complaint alleged that the defendants violated the plaintiffs' financial privacy rights by sharing private financial information with law enforcement agencies through a program coordinated by the Transaction Record Analysis Center. On January 24, 2023, an amended complaint was filed naming WUFSI as a defendant in place of the company. The court granted in part and denied in part WUFSI's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 21, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that re-alleged the state law cause of action against WUFSI, but did not re-allege the federal cause of action against WUFSI. The Western Union Company is into cross-border, cross-currency money movement, payments and digital financial services available through a network of agent locations in more than 200 countries and territories and also through money transfer transactions conducted and funded through websites and mobile applications. WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Equal Creditor-Related Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Equal Creditor Opportunity Act related class suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 25, 2022, a Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter 42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire suit and the court granted that motion to dismiss on September 27, 2023 and gave Plaintiff until October 20, 2023 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint. Wintrust moved to dismiss the amended complaint on November 21, 2023. Wintrust vigorously disputes these allegations, believing them to be legally and factually meritless, and Wintrust otherwise lacks sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability. Wintrust Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that operates chartered community banks in Northern Illinois and Southern Wisconsin. Wintrust Bank N.A. is a federally-chartered bank and a subsidiary of WFC. Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company.[BN] WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend ERISA-Related Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wintrust Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the ERISA class suit in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 29, 2022, a former Wintrust employee filed a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) against Wintrust Financial Corporation. Plaintiff alleges Wintrust breached its fiduciary duty in the selection of BlackRock Target Date funds for inclusion in its 401(k) plan, that Wintrust failed to monitor the performance of those funds, and in the alternative, Wintrust should be liable for breach of trust. Plaintiff’s sole basis for the allegations is that BlackRock Target Date funds allegedly performed more poorly than two comparable funds over a three-year period. Wintrust is one of several public companies that were sued on identical grounds within the same week by the same plaintiff’s law firm. On November 8, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint. On July 14, 2023, the District Court granted Wintrust’s motion to dismiss and gave Plaintiff until August 2, 2023 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint which Wintrust moved to dismiss on September 14, 2023. On August 14, 2024, the district court granted Wintrust’s motion with prejudice. On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff timely appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiff’s opening brief is due on December 18, 2024 and Wintrust’s response brief is due on January 31, 2025. The Company continues to believe that plaintiff’s allegations continue to be legally and factually meritless, that the district court correctly dismissed the amended complaint, and otherwise lack sufficient information to estimate the amount of any potential liability. WISETECH GLOBAL: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ David Swan of The Sydney Morning Herald reports that embattled logistics software company WiseTech Global says it will "vigorously defend" a class action lawsuit in Victoria's Supreme Court, only weeks after CEO Richard White resigned from his position following allegations of inappropriate behaviour. Law firm Phi Finney McDonald on Wednesday, November 13, said it had initiated legal proceedings against WiseTech, alleging the company engaged in misleading conduct and breached its disclosure obligations to investors. The claim, brought on behalf of shareholders, alleges the company issued misleading financial guidance in 2019 and 2020 relating to a significant number of businesses it had acquired, and had downgraded its earnings guidance despite earlier assuring the market it was "on track". The action is not related to the allegations surrounding its recently departed CEO White, but Phi Finney McDonald said it was investigating whether its clients would have further claims against WiseTech relating to those issues. "For aggressive and high-growth companies, pride often comes before a fall," Phi Finney McDonald principal lawyer Tania Noonan said in a statement. "Good corporate governance requires a culture of compliance -- not with powerful founders -- but with the law. "Investors are entitled to expect that Australian publicly listed companies have a reasonable basis for their financial forecasts. The integrity of the Australian sharemarket requires companies to immediately disclose price-sensitive information in accordance with the ASX listing rules so that investors can make informed decisions." WiseTech Global told investors last month that White would take a brief break before taking up a "full-time, long-term consulting role" where he will be paid the same annual salary -- $1 million -- that he received as chief executive. It followed an investigation by The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Australian Financial Review that revealed White paid for a multimillion-dollar house for an employee, and had been accused by an outgoing WiseTech Global director of intimidation and bullying. White is one of the richest people in the country with an estimated fortune of $11.63 billion, according to the latest Financial Review Rich List. The company said it would vigorously defend any class action proceedings brought against it, but that it had not yet been served with any paperwork. "WiseTech Global has become aware of a plaintiff law firm announcing that they commenced a class action against WiseTech Global on 12 November 2024 in the Supreme Court of Victoria on behalf of investors who acquired shares in WiseTech Global Ltd between 21 August 2019 and 18 February 2020," its board said in a statement. "WiseTech Global has not been served with any originating process in respect of the class action proceedings. WiseTech Global intends to vigorously defend any such proceedings if they are served." As previously reported, WiseTech Global has hired Herbert Smith Freehills and Seyfarth Shaw to review issues raised by this masthead and the Financial Review. "As WiseTech continues to grow, and becomes increasingly international, the board recognises that its governance practices will also continue to evolve. We are taking a fresh look at what we are doing well and what we can enhance," WiseTech Global chairman Richard Dammery said late last month. Shares in WiseTech fell 0.5 per cent to $131.54 in mid-afternoon trading on the ASX, but outperformed the broader market, which was down 0.9 per cent. [GN] WVMF FUNDING: Bid for Bifurcated Discovery Tossed in Renois Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIANNE RENOIS AS ADMINISTRATOR, FIDUCIARY AND BENEFICIARY OF AND FOR THE ESTATE OF ELLIS DEANGELO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, MYRTEEN LEE, TAUNA THOMPSON, v. WVMF FUNDING, LLC, and COMPU-LINK CORPORATION D/B/A CELINK, Case No. 1:20-cv-09281-LTS-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order denying the Defendants' letter motion, seeking bifurcated discovery. The Defendants WVMF Funding, LLC and Compu-Link Corporation seek to bifurcate discovery, such that the parties would engage in a short period of discovery now limited to the issue of the notice provided by Plaintiffs to Defendants concerning the existence of hazard insurance on property subject to a mortgage, and following that limited discovery, Defendants would move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Plaintiffs oppose the request to bifurcate merits discovery from class-action discovery. The Court held two conferences to discuss the issue of bifurcation. The Defendants have not shown good cause for bifurcating discovery, which as the Court explained during the conference is the exception in this Circuit. Whether Plaintiffs in this case sent a RESPA-compliant notice concerning the existence of hazard insurance on the property is an issue that does not solely concern the named Plaintiffs. The sufficiency of the notice sent by a borrower to Defendants will arise for every borrower in the class; it is a class-wide issue. Given the overlap, bifurcating discovery will only unnecessarily delay the case. Moreover, although Defendants contend that the sufficiency of Plaintiff's notice is dispositive of the claims alleged in the amended complaint, Plaintiffs contend that there is a threshold issue as to whether a borrower even had an obligation under RESPA to provide notice to Defendants. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=T4ZDRa at no extra charge.[CC] ********* 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 ***