/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241119.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 19, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 232 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Shelton Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Skelton Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Toalson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Torch Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert Filing Due April 10, 2025 ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification in Floyd Bid Due March 28, 2025 AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. AMERICAN FAMILY: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 17, 2025 AMERICAN GIANT: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd APPLE COMMUTER: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due Dec. 15 ARKANSAS: Elmore Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. AUDIENCEVIEW TICKETING: Settlement in Newman Suit Wins Initial Nod AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Valli Suit BAKER HUGHES: Reckstein Suit Ongoing in California Court BANCO DE LA PROVINCIA: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Glacial BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blair Alleges BENETEAU GROUP: Lovett Files Suit Over Unfair Warranty Terms BJC HEALTH: Luebbers Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Mo. BUILDING AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barfield Alleges CAMMILLA WAMSLEY: Bid to Extend Class Cert Response Granted CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Settlement in Hightower Gets Initial Nod CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Continue Dec. 2 Class Cert Hearing CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Henry Wins Class Certification Bid COLUMBIA DEBT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Abbink Due Sept. 5, 2025 COMMODORE CORNER: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Longhini Claims CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Appeals ERISA Suit Judgment to 4th Cir. CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Albro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Mitchell Seeks Interest on Untimely Payments CORNERSTONE BUILDERS: Rosello Seeks Unpaid Wages for Installers CVS HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit DALLAS CAPITAL: Baxter Seeks Unlawfully Retained Tips Under FLSA DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Court Approves Request in Document 63 DELTA AIR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Due Dec. 10 DELTA STAR: Court Extends Deadline for Class Cert Filing in Wilson DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Modify Class Cert Brief Schedule OK'd DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 5, 2025 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in Fisher Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Greig Seeks Proper OT Pay for Police Officers DR. DENNIS: Class Action Settlement in Kandel Suit Gets Final Nod DRUM CENTER: Thorne Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website EARTHMED LLC: Peters Sues Over Unfair Distribution of Cash Tips ELLIOTT HOMES: Angel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ENPHASE ENERGY: Bialic Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Hayes Securities Suit in California Court ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Clark Class Suit in California EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Oilfield Flowback Workers, Stanley Alleges EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Martinez Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida ERLC LLC: Harris Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Santos Says FPL FOOD: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Lewis Says FROEDTERT HEALTH: Parties Seek More Time to File Response GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Settle Securities Suits Over Stock Purchase GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Arndt Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit GRUPO TFJ: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Class Suit Says HBO HOME: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Elliot Suit HIGHER EDUCATION: Maldonado Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal. HINDUJA GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benoit Alleges HOME DESIGN: Faces Bermudez Suit Over Defective Upholstered Beds HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 12, 2025 HONEY POT: Tucker Sues Over Feminine Care Products' False Labels HUB CYBER SECURITY: Faces Avner Securities Suit in Israeli Court INTERTEK BROADWAY: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Litigation ISAAC OUAZANA: Bid to Strike Unsworn Expert Reports Tossed JACOBS TECHNOLOGY: Geib Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. JOHNSON AND WALES: Volquez Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info KELLY SERVICES: Merrill Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages KIK INTERNATIONAL: Sanders Files Civil Suit in Georgia State Court KINDER MORGAN: Pension Fund Mismanagement Suit for Mediation KRUDOS KITCHEN: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Villagrana Suit Claims LANDMARK ADMIN: Roberts Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info LG ELECTRONICS: Armour Sues Over Defective Refrigerators LIGHTSTONE VALUE: Ayer Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to D. New Jersey LINKEDIN CORP: L.B. Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. MARSH ELECTRONICS: Xiong Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors MAXLINEAR INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Askeland Says MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Lee Claims MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Lindsey Says MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Page Says MDL 2873: Faces Morlan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Humphries Says MDL 2873: Fuller Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2873: Robinson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Smith Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Vlaming Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure MDL 2873: Wills Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure METALS COMPANY: Faces Lin Class Suit Over 13.23% Stock Price Drop MOBILELINK SOUTH: Markwell Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation MUSKEGON, MI: Grissom Brings Appeal to Mich. Ct. of Appeals NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Says NEW FORTRESS: Anderson Files Suit Over Share Price Decline NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust & Competition Class Suit NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settlement in Principle Reached in Class Suit NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: S.S. Sues Over Private Health Info Disclosure OP PHARMACY: Faces Russo Suit Over Customers' Compromised Info PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Moore Says PARK HOTELS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Gil Suit Says PARKMOBILE LLC: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Baker Suit PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod RALGO DORAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says RENEWABLE INNOVATIONS: Faces Securities Suit in Utah REVENTICS LLC: Henderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit RHEEM MANUFACTURING: West Sues Over Drain Valves' Design Defects RICKY SHULER: Baker Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NMMWA ROGERS HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanton Alleges SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Woebbeking Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice SHOP MA INC: Moody Sues Over Illegal Recording of Communication SUPERIOR STAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lenzini Alleges THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Tafoya Claims TILRAY BRANDS: Salama Sues Over Incorrect Info in Proxy Statement UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays Davtian Suit Pending Arbitration UIPATH INC: Gupta Dismissed from Severt Suit UNITED HEALTHCARE: Must Oppose Class Certification by Jan. 21, 2025 UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit in Pennsylvania UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit UPSTART HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Memo VGW HOLDINGS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response WALMART INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Faison Due May 12, 2025 WELLS FARGO: Hummel Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Court OK's PAGA Class Suit Settlement XPEL INC: Continues to Defend Adishian Securities Class Suit XTO ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kriley Suit Due Nov. 25 YZER LLC: Faces Mestanza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court ZENLEADS INC: Uses Consumers' Info Without Consent, Masry Suit Says ZIDIAN MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Bronx Pasta Sauces, Sarrubbo Says ********* 3M COMPANY: Adams Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Larry Adams Jr., et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-903936.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Nov. 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01552-JHE. The Plaintiffs generally allege that certain Defendants, including 3M, have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors, and allege that other Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold TOG products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors. Each of the Plaintiffs expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Shelton Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Shelton, 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-05336-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 Thyroid 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: Skelton Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------ Shelby Skelton, 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-05345-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 Renal Cell Carcinoma 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: Toalson Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Toalson, 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-05352-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 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: Torch Sues Over Exposure to Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------- Pierre Torch, 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-05337-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 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Cert Filing Due April 10, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLEEN VILLARREAL, OMAR MASRY individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered the case schedule as follows: Event Current Date Proposed Date Motion for Class Certification Jan. 23, 2025 April 10, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class April 25, 2025 July 11, 2025 Certification Reply In Support of Motion for June 19, 2025 Sept. 4, 2025 Class Certification Hearing on Class Certification July 10, 2025 Sept. 25, 2025 Motion Deadline for Both Parties to Feb. 13, 2026 May 1, 2026 Disclose Non-Class-Certification- Related Experts Expert Discovery Cutoff March 27, 2026 June 12, 2026 Last Day to File Dispositive April 24, 2026 July 10, 2026 Motions Pretrial Conference Sept. 15, 2026 Dec. 1, 2026 Trial Oct. 5, 2026 Dec. 21, 2026 Abbott Laboratories is an American multinational medical devices and health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIZukn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. Samuel M. Gagnon, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com sgagnon@clarksonlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com - and - William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq. Jane Metcalf, Esq. William Scott Kim, Esq. Jonah Knobler, Esq. Jacqueline Bonneau, Esq. Amanda S. First, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com jmetcalf@pbwt.com wskim@pbwt.com jknobler@pbwt.com jbonneau@pbwt.com afirst@pbwt.com ADVENTHEALTH FOUNDATION: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Benore v. Adventhealth Foundation, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-02027 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 6, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASIBEL CANCHOLA, CARLOS OCHOA, ROBERT SOUZA, and RICHARD CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 8:23-cv-00734-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Allstate's application to file under seal the following materials in support of Allstate's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: On July 18, 2023, the parties submitted a stipulated Protective Order to govern the exchange of confidential information in this case. Magistrate Judge Spaeth modified and entered the parties' Protective Order on July 26, 2023. During discovery, several documents were produced by Plaintiffs and Allstate that were designated as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only." Allstate offers home, auto, commercial, farm, life, health, recreational vehicle, and other personal insurance services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gwzPQc at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Neal Marder, Esq. Joshua A. Rubin, Esq. Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq. Katherine I. Heise, Esq. AGAKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1000 Facsimile: (310) 229-1001 E-mail: nmarder@akingump.com rubinj@akingump.com blian@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com - and - Keith A. Jacoby, Esq. Robert S. Blumberg, Esq. Jaime B. Laurent, Esq. Emily J. Atherton, Esq. Jamar D. Davis, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 AMAZON.COM INC: Class Certification in Floyd Bid Due March 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN FLOYD, JOLENE FURDEK, and JONATHAN RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC. and APPLE INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-01599-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order vacating previous case deadlines. Accordingly, the parties shall now follow this schedule: Fact discovery cutoff: Feb. 26, 2025 Class-certification motion and supporting Mar. 28, 2025 reports: Class-certification opposition and May 30, 2025 supporting reports: Class-certification reply and reply reports: Aug. 15, 2025 Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1xTBtw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Ben Harrington, Esq. Benjamin Siegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com benh@hbsslaw.com bens@hbsslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: John Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA, 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: johngoldmark@dwt.com maryannalmeida@dwt.com - and - Mark D. Hopson, Esq. Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Esq. Benjamin M. Mundel, Esq. Jacquelyn E. Fradette, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 1501 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-8000 Facsimile: (202) 736-8711 E-mail: jnuechterlein@sidley.com bmundel@sidley.com - and - Mark S. Parris, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 401 Union Street, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 839-4300 Facsimile: (206) 839-4301 E-mail: mparris@orrick.com - and - Mark A. Perry, Esq. Eric S. Hochstadt, Esq. Brian G. Liegel, Esq. Morgan D. MacBride, Esq. WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP 2001 M. Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 682-7000 E-mail: mark.perry@weil.com eric.hochstadt@weil.com brian.liegel@weil.com morgan.macbride@weil.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Simons Appeals Suit Dismissal to Del. Sup. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL SIMONS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Michael Simons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2023-0835-MTZ, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. In early August 2023, AMC got approval from Delaware's Court of Chancery to convert its preferred stock, known as APEs, to common shares. That settlement included extra shares for individual investors, though thousands of them opposed it due to concerns that their shares would be diluted. On August 14, 2023, Michael Simons, a preferred APE holder, filed filed a putative class action on behalf of himself and APE holders, and asked the Chancery Court to declare the deal invalid. The Class Action asserts claims for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and breach of contract, and alleges that the Settlement Payment in the Shareholder Litigation violates the Certificate of Designations that govern the APEs prior to the conversion of the APEs into Common Stock. On Sept. 12, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Morgan T. Zurn granted on Oct. 2, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Michael Simons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc., Case No. 457,2024, in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL SIMONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Russell D. Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 691-9545 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Michael Dell' Angelo, Esq. Andrew Abramowitz, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: mdellangelo@bm.net aabramowitz@bm.net Defendant-Appellee AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. Matthew W. Murphy, Esq. Edmond S. Kim, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - John A. Neuwirth, Esq. Joshua S. Amsel, Esq. Matthew S. Connors, Esq. Tanner S. Stanley, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 AMERICAN FAMILY: Conditional Class Cert Filing Due Feb. 17, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BRINK, et al., v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., Case No. 3:24-cv-00562-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial conference order as follows: -- Plaintiff's motion for conditional Feb. 17, 2025 certification of the class: Response: March 17, 2025 Reply: March 31, 2025 -- Motion to Certify Class and Disclosure of Experts: Plaintiff/Proponent: Nov. 7, 2025 Defendant/Respondent: Dec. 12, 2025 Reply and Rebuttal Expert Jan. 2, 2026 Disclosures: -- Deadline for Filing Dispositive Motions: May 6, 2026 Responses: June 3, 2026 Replies: June 24, 2026 -- Settlement Letters: Sept. 1, 2026 -- First Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 21, 2026 -- Second Final Pretrial Conference: Oct. 28, 2026 -- Trial: Nov. 2, 2026 American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses on property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as investment and retirement-planning products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZnYM7A at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN GIANT: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GIANT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08349 (S.D.N.Y., November 1, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.american-giant.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on September 3, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his home in an effort to shop for products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, he was unable to understand and properly interact with the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the jacket (Fleece Bomber Jacket), that he wished to acquire from the website, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. American Giant, Inc. operates the website that provides apparel products. The Company offers t-shirt, hoodies, shorts, pants, and dresses. American Giant serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ANTILLANA & METRO: Huerta Bid for Conditional Certification OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FERNANDO SANTIAGO HUERTA, et al., v. ANTILLANA & METRO SUPERMARKET, CORP., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00002-RA-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Ona Wang entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. -- The Plaintiffs shall submit their revised proposed notice by Nov. 22, 2024. By Nov. 22, 2024. -- The Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff the contact and employment information, for all non-managerial employees employed by the Defendants since Jan. 1, 2020. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), alleging unpaid overtime compensation, failure to furnish proper wage statements and notices, and retaliation. Antillana offers food and beverage services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gluJ1G at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE COMMUTER: Reply in Support of Class Cert Due Dec. 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kakha Abuladze, et al., v. Apple Commuter, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-08684-MMG-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky entered an order as follows: -- The parties shall file a joint update by Nov. 8, 2024 on the status but not the substance of their settlement discussions. -- By Nov. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall make their application for a default judgment against Defendants Hotel at Times Square, NYMA, Moosazadeh, and Diedrich. -- The deadline for the Defendants to oppose Plaintiffs' class certification motion is extended nunc pro tunc until Nov. 15, 2024, and the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a reply in further support of the class certification motion is extended until Dec. 15, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=voqHMx at no extra charge.[CC] ARKANSAS: Elmore Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 8th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY CHARLES ELMORE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Charles Elmore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Does, Employed by Arkansas Division of Correction, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00263-BSM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The suit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of Prisoner Civil Rights. On Apr. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Apr. 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney filed a Report and Recommendations for the dismissal of the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim. On June 3, 2024, Judge Brian S. Miller entered an Order adopting Judge Kearney's Report and Recommendations. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The Court held that the dismissal counts as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g), and an in forma pauperis appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The appellate case is captioned Jeffrey Elmore v. Does, et al., Case No. 24-3210, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JEFFREY CHARLES ELMORE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. AUDIENCEVIEW TICKETING: Settlement in Newman Suit Wins Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JADYN NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, v. AUDIENCEVIEW TICKETING CORPORATION and UNIVERSITYTICKETS.COM, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03764-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order granting class certification for settlement purposes only: "All persons who were sent notification by AudienceView Ticketing Corporation that their payment card information was or may have been compromised in the Data Incident." The Settlement Class includes approximately 13,045 people. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendants, their subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. -- Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel JADYN NEWMAN and RICHARD Z. TOLEDO are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. The Court provisionally finds that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members and therefore typical of the Settlement Class and that they will be adequate Class Representatives. -- Preliminary Settlement Approval The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement, as embodied in the Settlement Agreement, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing to be conducted as described below Settlement Class Members who qualify for and wish to submit a Claim Form shall do so in accordance with the requirements and procedures specified in the Notice and the Claim Form, and must do so by not later than Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025. AudienceView provides e-commerce and ticketing software solution. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=poppyP at no extra charge.[CC] AVIS BUDGET: Appeals Summary Judgment Bid Denial in Valli Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion for partial summary judgment and motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Dawn Valli, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-14-cv-06072, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning charging car rental customers for alleged traffic infractions and an administrative fee without consent, without disclosure, and without the opportunity to contest the allegation. On Feb. 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and a motion for partial summary judgment. On Feb. 7, 2024, the Defendants filed an amended motion to compel arbitration. On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge James B. Clark denied the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and amended motion to compel arbitration. The Court ruled that the Defendants have offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether an affirmative misrepresentation and the capacity to mislead exists based on the use of the term violation in either agreement. The appellate case is captioned Dawn Valli, et al. v. Avis Budget Group Inc., et al., Case No. 24-3025, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DAWN VALLI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William J. Pinilis, Esq. PINILISHALPERN 160 Morris Street Morristown, NJ 07960 Telephone: (973) 401-1111 - and - Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER 800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Defendants-Appellants AVIS BUDGET GROUP INC., et al. are represented by: Aaron M. Bender, Esq. REED SMITH 506 Carnegie Center, Suite 300 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (609) 514-5955 - and - Jason E. Hazlewood, Esq. Tia M. McClenney, Esq. REED SMITH 225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 288-5744 (412) 288-3015 BAKER HUGHES: Reckstein Suit Ongoing in California Court -------------------------------------------------------- Baker Hughes Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in October 23, 2024, that it is facing a putative securities class action complaint captioned "The Reckstin Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.," Case 22-cv-01413-HSG (March 4, 2022, N.D. Cal.) against the company, and certain current and former officers and directors. On February 22, 2024, the court dismissed the claims against the company. However, on April 4, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, reasserting their claims against the company under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act. Baker Hughes Holdings LLC held equity investments in C3 AI. On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names as defendants the company, four current and former officers and directors, the underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO), and Baker Hughes Company. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions about its partnership with Baker Hughes and the company's own salesforce. The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these misstatements or omissions in connection with the company's IPO in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs. All defendants have now moved to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 1, 2023. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter defendants. The remaining motions to dismiss was scheduled last November 2, 2023. Baker Hughes Company is an energy technology company with a diversified portfolio of technologies and services that span the energy and industrial value chain. C3.ai, Inc. is an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) software provider with prebuilt and configurable AI applications for business use. BANCO DE LA PROVINCIA: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Glacial ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLACIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al., v. BANCO DE LA PROVINCIA DE BUENOS AIRES, Case No. 1:24-cv-08156-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a general pretrial management order: -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. -- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6k2xP7 at no extra charge.[CC] BARRETT FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blair Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER BLAIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRETT FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03157-DJH (D. Ariz., Nov. 12, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Blair was employed by the Defendant as a processor. Barrett Financial Group, L.L.C. operates as a mortgage broker. The Company provides equal housing opportunities with the help of a variety of wholesale lenders. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Weiler, Esq. Jason Barrat, Esq. WEILER LAW PLLC 5050 N.40th St., Suite 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (480) 442-3410 Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com jbarrat@weilerlaw.com BENETEAU GROUP: Lovett Files Suit Over Unfair Warranty Terms ------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN LOVETT, PHIL BARTEL, and MEDLODEE BARTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BENETEAU GROUP AMERICA, INC.; BENETEAU, S.A., d.b.a. GROUPE BENETEAU; Defendants, Case No. N24C-09-266 SKR CCLD (Del. Sup., September 27, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the Magnusson Moss Warranty Act and its enabling regulations. Beneteau, S.A., d.b.a. Groupe Beneteau is a multinational corporation headquartered in France. Groupe Beneteau's primary consumer products are sailboats and powerboats, and it generally oversees all aspects of these products including, but not limited to, their design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, and warranty services. According to the complaint, the Defendants improperly condition the continued validity of their warranties on consumers, including Plaintiffs, paying for expensive inspections and repairs that may only be performed by Defendants' service providers. In its marketing materials, Beneteau repeatedly touts its supposedly generous warranty program as a key reason why someone should buy a Beneteau boat. Unfortunately, Beneteau's warranties are deceptive and violate U.S. law. Beneteau requires boats under warranty to be serviced periodically at a Beneteau dealership to maintain the warranty, regardless of whether the boat needs service, says the suit. Defendant Beneteau's deliberately deceptive and anti-competitive behavior has caused harm to Plaintiffs and the Class in the form of significant financial expenditures and lost enjoyment of their boats, the suit alleges.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dashiell R. Radosti, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE SOLUTIONS A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION 1007 N. Market St. Unit 15, Suite G20 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 281-2649 Facsimile: (302) 276-8514 E-mail: dash.radosti@equaljusticesolutions.org - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. James M. LaMarca, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE LLP 6425 Living Pl. Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Telephone: (412) 370-6045 E-mail: ek@waykayslay.com jlamarca@waykayslay.com BJC HEALTH: Luebbers Suit Removed From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL J. LUEBBERS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BJC HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. 2422-CC11205 (Filed Sept. 25, 2024), was removed from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 8, 2024. The Eastern Missouri District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01500 to the proceeding. The suit alleges that BJC has violated and continues to violate Mo. Rev. Stat. section 290.500 by failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and members of the putative class for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. The Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of: "[a]ll clinical pharmacists employed by BJC who were not compensated at a rate of one-and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 a week at any time from two years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit to the present or who were not compensated at 1/52 of their annual salary for weeks worked less than forty hours a week at any time from five years prior to the commencement of this lawsuit." BJC Health System is a nonprofit health care organizations in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel T. DeFeo, Esq. Erika V. Dopuch, Esq. THE DEFEO LAW FIRM 4435 Main Street, Suite 880 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 581-4600 Facsimile: (816) 581-4646 E-mail: ddefeo@defeolaw.com edopuch@defeolaw.com - and - Timothy A. Engelmeyer, Esq. ENGELMEYER & PEZZANI, LLC 13321 N. Outer Forth Rd., Suite 300 Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 532-9933 Facsimile: (314) 863-7793 E-mail: tim@epfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. Madeline Nebel, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 700 W. 47th St., Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: Patrick.Hulla@ogletree.com Maddie.Nebel@ogletree.com BUILDING AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barfield Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LEON BARFIELD, individually and on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUILDING AMERICA STRONGER WELDING, LLC; EDI PRECAST, LLC, ROBERT HARRIS; THOMAS E. NICHOLSON, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00080-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., Nov. 18, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Barfield was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker. Building America Stronger Welding, LLC is a metal building contractor based in Chevy Chase, Maryland, which performs substantial work in Virginia, including in the Charlottesville area. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Nadas, Esq. Matthew K. Handley, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200K Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 899-2991 Email: rnadas@hfajustice.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 1100 N. Glebe Rd. Suite 1010 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 665-9529 Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com CAMMILLA WAMSLEY: Bid to Extend Class Cert Response Granted ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHOSHIMJON SOBIRJANOV, et al., v. CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-04129-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul Diamond entered an order granting the Defendants' consent motion to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification. The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification no later than Nov. 18, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ENtsh8 at no extra charge.[CC] CELESTRON ACQUISITION: Settlement in Hightower Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hightower v. Celestron Acquisition, LLC et al. (RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and issuing notice: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement Class, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and defined as follows, is preliminarily certified for the purpose of settlement only: "all persons and entities in the Indirect Purchaser States who, during the period from Jan. 1, 2005 to Sept. 6, 2023, purchased one or more Telescopes from a distributor (or from an entity other than a Defendant) that a Defendant or alleged co- conspirator manufactured. Excluded from the Class are Defendants; their parent companies, subsidiaries and Affiliates; any co-conspirators; Defendants' attorneys in this Action; federal government entities and instrumentalities, states and their subdivisions; all judges assigned to this Action; all jurors in this Action; and all directly purchased Telescopes from Defendants. The Settlement Class also excludes members who timely exercised their right to exclude themselves pursuant to the procedures described in the Notice. Specifically, the Court preliminary approves the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement, including the releases contained therein, and the proposed plan of allocation and distribution described in Exhibit A to the Salinas Declaration, because the Court will likely be able to find that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate after considering the Rule 23(e)(2)(A)–(D) factors and governing case law. By Nov. 11, 2024 [no later than ten (10) days after the issuance of this Order], Defendants shall cause to be paid into the Escrow Account $1,000,000 to cover the administrative costs associated with Notice. By Nov. 1, 2025 [no later than twelve (12) months after the issuance of this Order], Defendants shall cause to be paid into the Escrow Account another $1,000,000 (for a total of $2,000,000). The Court appoints Verita Global, LLC as the notice and claims administrator. Verita shall supervise and administer the notice procedures, establish and operate the settlement website, administer the claims processes, distribute payments according to the processes and criteria set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and perform any other duties that are reasonably necessary and/or provided for in the Settlement Agreement. Celestron manufactures life science equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0T5wj at no extra charge.[CC] CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks to Continue Dec. 2 Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVANAN MAHARAJ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees of Defendants in the State of California, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00064-BAS-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion to continue the Dec. 2, 2024 hearing date on the Plaintiff Devanan Maharaj's bid for class certification and related filing deadlines. The Defendant requests that the Court enter the Parties' timely filed Joint Motion. There is no prejudice to any party if the noticed Dec. 2, 2024, hearing date on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is continued to Jan. 6, 2025, or a date shortly thereafter convenient to the Court, and the request is stipulated to by the Parties. The joint motion is brought in good faith by the parties and is submitted ex parte by the Defendant's counsel simply due to the scheduling logistics and complications involved with their having three previously scheduled evidentiary hearings moving forward within the same time that Defendant's Opposition is currently due on Nov. 18, 2024. Charter is an American telecommunications and mass media company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AMKbPX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Keith J. Rasher, Esq. Laura M. Jordan, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 282-2500 Facsimile: (310) 282-2501 E-mail: krasher@thompsoncoburn.com ljordan@thompsoncoburn.com CLAYTON COUNTY, GA: Henry Wins Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN HENRY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. CLAYTON COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 1:24-cv-00441-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class; and -- approving the Plaintiffs proposed notices, reminder notices, and consent to opt-in forms for each collective The Defendant is directed to provide to Plaintiff within 21 days of the date of this Order a computer-readable file containing the names, dates of birth, last known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment of all potential collective members. The Plaintiff shall take care to maintain the confidentiality of this information. The Plaintiff is directed to collect and timely file consent to opt-in forms from opt-in plaintiffs for 60 days from the date of this Order. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint, motion to certify, and supporting exhibits satisfy her burden of demonstrating that the proposed opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated to her, and that conditional certification is appropriate. The Plaintiff has a reasonable basis for her allegations that she and the proposed opt-in plaintiffs have substantially similar job duties and are subject to the same pay policies with regard to oncall shifts and lunch breaks, and her allegations are supported by the affidavits of two proposed plaintiffs who have already consented to opt in. The Court will therefore conditionally certify the two proposed collectives, as outlined in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: "On-Call Collective" "All persons who were, or are, employed by CCSD as non-exempt employees at any time within three years prior to the filing of [the original] Complaint and who were not compensated at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all time worked on call in excess of forty hours per week"; "Break Collective" "All persons who were, or are, employed by CCSD as non-exempt employees at any time within three years prior to the filing of [the Original] Complaint and who were not compensated at an overtime rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for time worked during their lunch "breaks" in excess of 40 hours per week." This action arises from the Plaintiff Karen Henry’s employment as a school resource officer for Defendant Clayton County School District. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant pays her and other similarly situated employees irregularly rather than for set pay periods, such that when the Defendant calculates and pays overtime, "it does so according to the time elapsed since their most recent paycheck" rather than on a regular interval. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9QHDJI at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA DEBT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Abbink Due Sept. 5, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYCE ABBINK, v. COLUMBIA DEBT RECOVERY, LLC d/b/a GENESIS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00557-MJP (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order setting trial date and related dates: Jury Trial Date March 9, 2026 Deadline for joining additional parties: Nov. 15, 2024 Deadline for filing amended pleadings: Dec. 2, 2024 Reports from expert witness under May 12, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Expert rebuttal reports due: June 12, 2025 All motions related to discovery must be July 11, 2025 filed and noted on the motion calendar in compliance with Local Civil Rule (LCR) 7(d): Discovery completed by: Aug. 11, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Class Sept. 5, 2025 Certification, which shall be noted for consideration 28 days after filing, in compliance with LCR 7(d)(4): All dispositive motions must be filed by Nov. 17, 2025 and noted on the motion calendar in compliance with LCR 7(d): All motions in limine must be filed by and Feb. 2, 2026 noted on the motion calendar in compliance with LCR 7(d)(5): Agreed pretrial order due: Feb. 24, 2026 Trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, Feb. 24, 2026 and proposed jury instructions due: Pretrial Conference: Mar. 3, 3026 at 1:30 PM Columbia Debt specializes in collections for the multi-family industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ukKl5n at no extra charge.[CC] COMMODORE CORNER: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Longhini Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- DOUG LONGHINI v. COMMODORE CORNER, LLC, and RUSTICA DE SERRANO VILLAGRA G. Y VILLAGRA F. LLC d/b/a LORETTA & THE BUTCHER, Case No. 1:24-cv-24415-JB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2024) is a class action alleging that the Defendants have discriminated against the 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 businesses located in it, as prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The individual Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located within the commercial property, to include a visit on Oct. 14, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the Commercial Property, the suit says. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, added the suit. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the ADA. Plaintiff Longhini is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. Commodore owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots located in Miami Dade County, 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 Telephone: 305-553-3464 Facsimile: (855) 205-6904 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@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 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com CONSOL ENERGY: Fitzwater Appeals ERISA Suit Judgment to 4th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- BENNY FITZWATER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Benny Fitzwater, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONSOL Energy, Incorporated, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09849, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations in the termination of retiree health care benefits. On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. entered an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants as to all other claims. The appellate case is captioned Benny Fitzwater v. CONSOL Energy, Incorporated, Case No. 24-2088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BENNY FITZWATER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Samuel Brown Petsonk, Esq. PETSONK PLLC 417 East Main Street Oak Hill, WV 25901 - and - Bren Joseph Pomponio, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE 1217 Quarrier Street Charleston, WV 25301 - and - Aubrey Leigh Sparks, Esq. ACLU OF WEST VIRGINIA 1614 Kanawha Boulevard, East Charleston, WV 25311 Telephone: (304) 202-3616 Defendants-Appellees CONSOL ENERGY, INCORPORATED, et al. are represented by: Alexis E. Bates, Esq. Joseph J. Torres, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 353 North Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 840-7577 (312) 840-8685 - and - Michael Deering Mullins, Esq. STEPTOE LLP P.O. Box 1588 Charleston, WV 25326 Telephone: (304) 353-8157 CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Albro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. The case is styled as Christopher Albro, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0012452 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Sept. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc. -- https://www.cbrands.com/ -- produces and markets wines and beverages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP 515 S Figueroa St., Ste. 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3316 Phone: 213-488-6555 Fax: 213-488-6554 Email: lwlee@diversitylaw.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Mitchell Seeks Interest on Untimely Payments ------------------------------------------------------------------- MITCHELL MINERALS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00218-KHR (D. Wy., October 31, 2024) is a class action concerning Continental's ongoing violation of Wyoming law related to the interest owed on untimely payments of oil-and-gas proceeds and Continental's failure to comply with the check stub reporting requirements under Wyoming law. According to the complaint, when an operator fails to timely pay or escrow within those statutory timelines, Wyoming law requires that the operator pay owners interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Continental does not automatically pay the interest it owes on untimely payments of oil-and-gas proceeds, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action to recover damages for itself and all similarly situated owners who received untimely payments from Continental. The Plaintiff also brings this class action to recover the $100 liability imposed by Wyoming law for failing to provide the information required on Continental's monthly check stubs. The Plaintiff owns an overriding royalty interest in oil and gas produced from various wells located in Converse County, Wyoming. Continental Resources Inc. is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brady L. Smith, Esq. BRADY SMITH LAW One Leadership Square, Suite 1320N 211 N. Robinson Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 293-3029 E-mail: Brady@BLSmithLaw.com - and - S. Gregory Thomas, Esq. THOMAS & THOMAS, LLC 316 S. Gillette Ave., Suite 200 Gillette, WY 82716 Telephone: 307-257-5298 E-mail: greg@tntlaw.org CORNERSTONE BUILDERS: Rosello Seeks Unpaid Wages for Installers --------------------------------------------------------------- JEREMY ROSELLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORNERSTONE BUILDERS OF SW FLORIDA INC. and MATTHEW KARVIS, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01035 (M.D. Fla., November 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages owed, including overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida Statutes and for retaliation. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a granite installer from approximately November 4, 2023, to February 23, 2024. Cornerstone Builders of SW Florida Inc. is a home remodeling company, with its principal place of business in Fort Myers, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ilona D. Anderson, Esq. CARPE DIEM LAW FIRM, PLLC 777 Brickell Ave., Ste. 500 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (786) 668-6688 Email: ianderson@carpediemlawfirm.com CVS HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE ELAYNE JONES and MARILYN A. MANZI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, f/k/a CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION, SILVERSCRIPT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC, CAREMARK L.L.C., f/k/a CAREMARK INC., CVS PHARMACY, INC., and CVS CAREMARK PART D SERVICES, LLC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01703-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. Therefore, because Rule 23 "really regulates procedure," and this Court has yet to make its determination on whether Rule 23's prerequisites are met, Defendant’s attempt to dismiss these claims on these grounds is without basis. In summary of the state consumer protection claims, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part with respect to plaintiffs' consumer protection claim under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, but the motion is otherwise denied. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants colluded and conspired with pharmaceutical manufacturers to deny Medicaid Part D beneficiaries access to less expensive generic alternatives to name-brand drugs, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. sections 1962, et. seq., and various state laws. CVS Health is an American healthcare company. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xzv1ll at no extra charge.[CC] DALLAS CAPITAL: Baxter Seeks Unlawfully Retained Tips Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BAXTER, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. DALLAS CAPITAL GROUP, LLC d/b/a POKEWORKS, ALI GHANDOUR, and HOUSAM FAWAL, Case No. 3:24-cv-02816-B (N.D. Tex., Nov. 7, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act stemming from Defendants' tip theft. The lawsuit contends that the Defendants adopted an employment policy that applies to all employees of Pokeworks, to retain or misappropriate the tips received by employees ("Tip Policy"). The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, brings this action under 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq. seeking appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals by unlawfully retaining received tips as required by the FLSA. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful retention of tips, the Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed because they were deprived of tips they earned, the suit contends. The Plaintiff and Class Members worked for the Defendants at their Pokeworks franchise stores by preparing food items and serving customers. Dallas Capital owns and operates Hawaiian-inspired poke restaurants known as "Pokeworks" in and around Addison, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Kevin M. Cox, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com kcox@thelyonfirm.com DARTMOUTH-HITCHCOCK: Court Approves Request in Document 63 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adams, et al., v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00099 (D.N.H., Filed March 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Landya B. Mccafferty entered an order: -- Approving the request in document number 63. -- Denying as moot document number 62 in light of pending settlement. It is denied without prejudice to refiling should it be necessary. The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.) Dartmouth–Hitchcock, the flagship campus of the Dartmouth Health system, is the U.S. state of New Hampshire's only academic medica.[CC] DELTA AIR: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint Due Dec. 10 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARBEN BAJRA, JOHN BRENNAN, ASHER EINHORN, and MELANIE SUSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 1 :24-cv-03477-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Mark Cohen entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion for consolidation and scheduling order. The Clerk is directed to (1) file this Order in both cases; (2) consolidate these matters into the first-filed action, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03477; and (3) administratively close Civil Action No. l:24-cv-03594. In light of this Court's grant of the Parties' Joint Motion, the Bajra Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Related Cases is denied as moot. This Court agrees with the Parties that the two cases are sufficiently related to support consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). This Court further finds that consolidation of these cases furthers the interests of the Parties and the Court by allowing a more efficient resolution of the issues that will arise in these cases. The Court further directs the Parties to comply with the following deadlines in the Consolidated Action: 1. On or before Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated class action complaint, which will supersede the amended complaints filed in the above-captioned cases. 2. The Defendant Delta Air Lines, Inc. shall file its motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on or before Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2024. 3. The Plaintiffs shall file their response to Delta's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on or before Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025. 4. Delta's reply is due Tuesday, Jan. 21, 2025. 5. The Parties shall hold a Rule 26(f) conference under Local Rule 16.1 on or before Dec. 20, 2024. 6. The Parties shall file the Joint Preliminary Report pursuant to Local Rule 16.2 on or before Jan. 10, 2025. 7. The Parties shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Local Rule 26.1 on or before Jan. 24, 2025. Delta Air Lines offers airline tickets & flights to over 300 destinations in 60 countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FY4X6 at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA STAR: Court Extends Deadline for Class Cert Filing in Wilson ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Max Wilson, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. Delta Star, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:21-cv-07326-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered an order extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification. Delta manufactures medium-power transformers, mobile transformers, and mobile substations. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IFj5mw at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid to Modify Class Cert Brief Schedule OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Antonio Morgan, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Leon entered an order granting the Defendant's consent motion to modify the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' third renewed motion for class certification and the entire record. The Defendant shall file any opposition to the Plaintiffs' third renewed motion for class certification on or before Nov. 22, 2024. The Plaintiffs shall file any reply on or before Dec. 16, 2024. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZa4Xy at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due May 5, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LEMEUL HOLLAND, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01380-JMC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Jia Cobb entered a scheduling order as follows: Initial Disclosures: Dec. 2, 2024 Amended Pleadings/Joinder of Additional Parties: Dec. 2, 2024 Close of Discovery for Class Certification and April 4, 2025 Liability: Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification: May 5, 2025 Defendant's Opposition to Motion for Class June 4, 2025 Certification: Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Class June 25, 2025 Certification: The Court encourages the Parties to mediate their case with a Magistrate Judge or through the Mediation Program of the Circuit Executive's Office. If, at any point, the Parties desire to engage in mediation, the Parties should file a joint request captioned "Joint Motion for Mediation," and the Court will make the requested referral. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=02ilW1 at no extra charge.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Class Cert Briefing Stayed in Fisher Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FISCHER, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00044 (D.D.C., Filed Jan. 05, 2024), the Hon. Judge Christopher R. Cooper entered an order staying briefing of class certification and all class-certification deadlines until after the Court has resolved: -- Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and -- Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend The nature of suit states civil rights. Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Greig Seeks Proper OT Pay for Police Officers ------------------------------------------------------------------- PETER GREIG, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated, Plaintiffs v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02763-ACR (D.D.C., October 22, 2024) is an amended class action complaint against the Defendants to remedy their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This amended complaint is being filed to add additional Plaintiffs to this lawsuit and to also correct the spelling of the names of certain Plaintiffs listed in the original complaint. According to the complaint, the Defendants have been required to pay D.C. Police Union members -- including Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees -- all wages owed to them for work performed in a two-week period, including overtime, at the immediate end of that two-week period. As of November 27, 2022 to present, the wages owed to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees required payment of the following amounts: (1) overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; and (2) overtime compensation for hours worked pursuant to scheduling changes. As a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees the proper amount of wages they were owed in a timely manner and during their regular pay periods, Defendants violated the FLSA and related regulations, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are all natural persons who, at all times relevant, have been employed by the MPD as police officers, police sergeants, and/or police detectives. The District of Columbia, commonly known as Washington or D.C., is the capital city and federal district of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Conti, Esq. Daniel J. McCartin, Esq. CONTI FENN LLC 36 South Charles Street, Suite 2501 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 837-6999 Facsimile: (410) 510-1647 E-mail: tony@contifenn.com dan@contifenn.com DR. DENNIS: Class Action Settlement in Kandel Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMI KANDEL, MOCHA GUNARATNA, and RENEE CAMENFORTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DR. DENNIS GROSS SKINCARE, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:23-cv-01967-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motions for final approval of class action settlement, attorneys' fees and costs, and service awards: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Action and over the Parties, including all members of the following Settlement Class certified for settlement purposes in this Court's Preliminary Approval Order: "All persons in the United States who, between March 10, 2016, and June 28, 2024, purchased in the United States, for personal or household consumption and not for resale or distribution, one of the Class Products." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the presiding judges in the Actions; (2) any member of those judges’ immediate families; (3) Defendant; (4) any of Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; (5) counsel for the Parties; and (6) any persons who timely opt-out of the Settlement Class. The Court finds and determines that the Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and above, meets all of the legal requirements for class certification for settlement purposes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3), and it is hereby ordered that the Class is finally certified for settlement purposes. The Court orders that Settlement Class Representatives Jami Kandel, Mocha Gunaratna, and Renee Camenforte are appointed as the Settlement Class Representatives. The Court also orders that Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., Ryan J. Clarkson, and Yana Hart are appointed as Class Counsel. The Court finally approves the Settlement Agreement, the exhibits, and the Settlement contemplated thereby, including but not limited to all releases contained within the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the terms constituted, in all respects, a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement as to all Settlement Class members in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and direct consummation pursuant to its terms and conditions. The Court approves payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel in the amount of $3,066,700 plus their costs of $457,416.66. This amount shall be paid from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the Settlement Administrator, EAG Gulf Coast, LLC, is entitled to recover costs in the amount of $482,625.72 for settlement administration and $105,413.15 to ClaimsScore LLC for claim validation and fraud detection services. Dr. Dennis offers beauty products. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O9nZfr at no extra charge.[CC] DRUM CENTER: Thorne Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRUM CENTER OF PORTSMOUTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08585 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City 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://drumcenternh.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. Drum Center of Portsmouth, 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 EARTHMED LLC: Peters Sues Over Unfair Distribution of Cash Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- STACEY PETERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EARTHMED LLC and GKMP CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11255 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2024) arises from the Defendants' engagement in tip theft by keeping portions of Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' cash tips and distributing them to management employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Plaintiff Stacey Peters was employed by Defendants at their cannabis dispensary located in Addison, Illinois from October 2023 to October 2024. She worked as "budtender." Her job duties involved working the cash register, performing customer service and retail sales duties, as well as assisting with shipments. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Peters and other hourly employees regularly received cash tips from customers. Near the end of each workday, Defendants' managers collected and combined all of the cash tips received that day, and then distributed the cash tips to employees who had worked that day in accordance with the number of hours they had worked that day. The Plaintiff frequently witnessed the nightly tip distribution process and observed that management employees, including both managers and "agents in charge," were also signing tip-out sheets and receiving distributions of cash tips in violation of the federal and state laws, says the suit. EarthMed LLC is a cannabis company engaged in the distribution and retail sale of cannabis products in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Kunze, Esq. Martin Stainthorp, Esq. WORKPLACE LAW PARTNERS 155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 719 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800  E-mail: kunze@fishlawfirm.com mstainthorp@fishlawfirm.com ELLIOTT HOMES: Angel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ELLIOTT HOMES, INC., et al. The case is styled as Connor Angel, and on behalf of all other similarly situated Class Members v. ELLIOTT HOMES, INC., Does 1-100, Case No. 24CV019402 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Sept. 26, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Elliott Homes -- https://myelliotthome.com/ -- is the premier home builder in Mississippi and the Gulf Coast area, with years of experience and a commitment to quality craftsmanship.[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 ENPHASE ENERGY: Bialic Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ Enphase Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that on or about July 23, 2024, the plaintiff in a May 29, 2024 putative securities class action complaint filed against the company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Bialic v. Enphase Energy, Inc.," Case No. 3:24-cv-03216-BLF, voluntarily dismissed the case. Said case was purportedly filed on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between February 7, 2023 and April 25, 2023. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one platform and using intelligent microinverters. ENPHASE ENERGY: Faces Hayes Securities Suit in California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Enphase Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that on July 15, 2024 a putative class action complaint was filed naming the company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Hayes v. Enphase Energy, Inc.," Case No. 3:24-cv-04249, purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between December 12, 2022 and April 25, 2023. Hayes alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a global energy technology company that manage solar generation, storage and communication on one platform and using intelligent microinverters. ENVESTNET INC: Continues to Defend Clark Class Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Envestnet 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 Clark class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company and Yodlee were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2020, by Plaintiff Deborah Wesch in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On October 21, 2020, an amended class action complaint was filed by Plaintiff Wesch and nine additional named plaintiffs. The case caption currently is Clark, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc. Case No. 3:20-cv-5991-SK (formerly entitled Deborah Wesch, et al., v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK). Plaintiffs alleged that Yodlee unlawfully collected their financial transaction data when plaintiffs linked their bank accounts to a mobile application that uses Yodlee’s Instant Account Verification API, and plaintiffs further allege that Yodlee unlawfully sold the transaction data to third parties. The complaint alleged violations of certain California statutes and common law, including the Unfair Competition Law, and federal statutes, including the Stored Communications Act. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and equitable and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a putative nationwide class and California subclass of persons who provided their log-in credentials to a Yodlee-powered app in an allegedly similar manner from 2014 to the present. On November 4, 2020, the Company and Yodlee filed separate motions to dismiss all of the claims in the complaint. On February 16, 2021, the district court granted in part and denied in part Yodlee’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend. The court reserved ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss and granted limited jurisdictional discovery to the plaintiffs. On March 15, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint re-alleging, among others, the claims the district court had dismissed. The second amended complaint did not allege any claims against the Company or Yodlee that were not previously alleged in first amended complaint. On May 5, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted against it in the second amended complaint, and Yodlee filed a motion to dismiss most claims asserted against it in the second amended complaint. On July 19, 2021, the court granted in part Yodlee's motion, resulting in the dismissal of all federal law claims and two of the state-law claims. On August 5, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the Company from the lawsuit. On October 8, 2021, Yodlee filed an early motion for summary judgment. On August 12, 2022, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint, which Yodlee opposed. On September 29, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint. On December 13, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Yodlee's early motion for summary judgment, narrowing the scope of issues that remain to be resolved. On January 30, 2023, the Court granted Yodlee's motion for reconsideration and dismissed one additional claim. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 19, 2023, which Yodlee answered on October 3, 2023. Discovery is closed. On May 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. After full briefing and a hearing, the Court issued an order on September 25, 2024, denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety. On October 9, 2024, plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to take an early appeal from that order under Rule 23(f). Yodlee opposed the petition on October 21, 2024, and plaintiffs sought permission to file a reply brief in support of their petition on October 28, 2024. The parties are awaiting the Ninth Circuit's ruling on plaintiffs' petition. The district court held a further case management conference on October 21, 2024, and set a new schedule whereby Yodlee's pending motion for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs, will be heard by December 16, 2024. Plaintiffs have also stated their intent to file a motion by November 29, 2024, for leave to amend to add new proposed class representatives. Yodlee believes the allegations and remaining individual claims are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend itself both in the district court and in any appeal. Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company based in Pennsylvania. EOG RESOURCES: Underpays Oilfield Flowback Workers, Stanley Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- LANCE STANLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG RESOURCES, INC. and CIELO ENERGY CONSULTING, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01286 (W.D. Tex., November 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an oilfield flowback worker from approximately October 1, 2020, to approximately March 30, 2024. EOG Resources, Inc. is a crude oil and natural gas exploration and production company based in Houston, Texas. Cielo Energy Consulting, LLC is a professional consulting firm based in Hondo, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 591-4564 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Martinez Files FCRA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services, LLC. The case is styled as Aldon Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angel Lluvet, II, Esq. MIAMI REALTY LAW GROUP 6625 NW Miami Lakes Dr. E., Suite #327 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Phone: (786) 444-9953 Email: angel@miamirealtylawgroup.com ERLC LLC: Harris Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII and PHI ----------------------------------------------------------- John Harris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situate v. ERLC, LLC dba ELITE CARE EMERGENCY HOSPITAL, Case No. 24-CV-1622 (Tex. 122nd Judicial Ct., Galveston Cty., Sept. 26, 2024) is brought against Defendant for its negligence and failure to properly secure and/or safeguard Plaintiff's and at least 24,7541 other similarly situated individuals' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Private Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") such as: names, dates of birth, and other medical information and health insurance information (the "Data Breach"). The personal data exposed by Defendant is highly sensitive. Thus, Plaintiff and the Class will be at a heightened risk of identity theft and fraud for the rest of their lives. The Defendant obtained the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, by collecting it directly from the Plaintiff and Class Members. Th eDefendant also creates and stores medical records, health records, and other protected health information for its patients, including records of treatment and diagnosis. The Defendant agreed to and undertook legal duties to safely and confidentiality maintain the PII and PHI entrusted to it by Plaintiff and the Class Members as required by law, including HIPAA. The Plaintiff and Class Members relied on this sophisticated Defendant to keep their PII and PHI confidential and securely maintained, to use this information for business purposes only, and to make only authorized disclosures of this information. Plaintiff and Class Members demand security to safeguard their PII and PHI. The Defendant had a duty to adopt reasonable measures to protect the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class Members from involuntary disclosure to third parties. Despite this, Defendant stored the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members, unencrypted, on its vulnerable Internet-accessible network, leaving Plaintiff's and the Class Members' Personal Information ripe for the taking, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and the Class Members are or were patients of Elite Care. The Defendant is an emergency hospital in League City, TX that provides "immediate emergency care for adults and children from local doctors who care for their patients like they would their own family.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (713) 276-345 Email: jellzey@eksm.com lmontgomery@eksm.com FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Santos Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDMUND SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12817 (D. Mass., November 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, and declaratory and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its information technology systems following a data breach from August 17, 2024, to August 19, 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. Fidelity Investments is a financial services firm headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Garrett D. Lee, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 155 Federal Street, 15th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (813) 223-0854 Email: glee@forthepeople.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-4736 Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com FPL FOOD: Fails to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Lewis Says -------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH LEWIS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FPL FOOD, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00203-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., Nov. 8, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendant’s failure to protect highly sensitive data. According to the complaint, cybercriminals were able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's personal identifying information. Due to the obfuscating nature of the Defendant's Breach Notice, it is unclear when the Data Breach began, however the Data Breach occurred prior to May 30, 2024. The total number of individuals injured by the Data Breach is unclear, but the impacted individuals include current and former employees of the Defendant, the suit says. The compromised information includes names, addresses, social security numbers, and Employee benefits information. Because of the Defendant's Data Breach, Plaintiff has suffered—and will continue to suffer from—anxiety, sleep disruption, stress, fear, and frustration. Such injuries go far beyond allegations of mere worry or inconvenience. Indeed, following the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has experienced numerous instances of fraud in the form of fraudulent charges of $129.65 for new services on his Dish account in Augst 2024 and an unauthorized payment of $103.50 made to the account on August 9, 2024 using his credit card information, the Plaintiff claims. Plaintiff Lewis is a former employee of Defendant. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach on Aug. 14, 2024. FPL Food is an Augusta-based beef producer founded in 2004.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Parties Seek More Time to File Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nichole Lutz on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, v. Froedtert Health Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00974-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending Defendant's deadline to file its response brief to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Nov. 15, 2024. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 1, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tHeObW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian M. Radloff, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 1243 N. 10th Street, Suite 200 Milwaukee, WI 53205 Telephone: (414) 239-6405 Facsimile: (414) 755-8289 E-mail: brian.radloff@ogletree.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Settle Securities Suits Over Stock Purchase ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Company (GE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions under the federal securities laws were filed against GE and certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Hachem case, also referred to as the Sjunde AP-Fonden case). In October 2024, parties reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the matter for $362.5 million. Final settlement of the matter is subject to court approval. The complaint against defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019. In January 2021, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. Specifically, the court dismissed all claims related to insurance reserves, as well as all claims related to accounting for long-term service agreements, with the exception of certain claims about historic disclosures related to factoring in the Power business that survive as to GE and its former CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein. All other individual defendants have been dismissed from the case. In April 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for shareholders who acquired stock between February 26, 2016 and January 23, 2018. In September 2022, GE filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims. In September 2023, the court denied GE's motion for summary judgment, except as to claims arising from disclosures made between November 2017 and January 2018. In April 2024, the court scheduled a trial date for November 2024. General Electric Company is a high-tech industrial company that today operates worldwide through three segments: Aerospace, Renewable Energy, and Power. Its products include commercial and military aircraft engines and systems; wind and other renewable energy generation equipment and grid solutions; and gas, steam, nuclear and other power generation equipment. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Arndt Appeals Suit Dismissal to 4th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY ARNDT is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his lawsuit entitled Timothy Arndt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:23-cv-02842-MJM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act and the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. On Jan. 5, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case, which Judge Matthew J. Maddox granted on Sept. 26, 2024. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish an injury-in-fact necessary to confer Article III standing. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Timothy Arndt v. Government Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 24-2087, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant TIMOTHY ARNDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph H. Kanee, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 20900 Northeast 30th Avenue Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (786) 369-1122 - and - Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 33 Whitehall Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1194 - and - James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD, LLP 888 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Defendant-Appellee GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: David Brian Farkas, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP US 2000 Avenue of the Stars, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 500-3412 - and - Glenn Alexander Gordon, Esq. John Edward McCann, Jr., Esq. MILES & STOCKBRIDGE PC 100 Light Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 385-3491 (410) 385-3586 - and - Oliver M. Kiefer, Esq. DLA PIPER US LLP 4365 Executive Drive San Diego, CA 92121 GRUPO TFJ: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO v. GRUPO TFJ PROPERTIES LLC and FIVE GUYS PROPERTIES LLC D/B/A FIVE GUYS BURGERS AND FRIES, Case No. 1:24-cv-24370 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 7, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and 28 U.S.C. sections 2201 and 2202. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and restaurant, to include visits on Sept. 25, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. He often visits the commercial property and restaurant business in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately twenty-eight miles from his residence and is near other business and restaurant he frequents as a patron. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and restaurant business have each denied or diminished the Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed and continues to pose a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to the Plaintiff, the suit contends. Mr. Brito, is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due to his impairment. He requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. Grupo TFJ Properties owned and continue to own a commercial property at 13130 Biscayne Blvd., North Miami, Florida 33181.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com HBO HOME: General Pretrial Management Order Entered in Elliot Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARC ELLIOT, v. HBO HOME ENTERTAINMENT CORP. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-07879-JPC-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, and for report and recommendation on dispositive motions. -- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. -- The Defendants are directed to advise this Court, no later than Nov. 18, 2024, whether they wish to proceed on the branch of their motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and if so, whether they wish to rely on their existing briefing, or file new motion papers. -- The Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this court. HBO is an American multinational media and entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zD89XL at no extra charge.[CC] HIGHER EDUCATION: Maldonado Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME MALDONADO, ANNA VARELA, ALMA GARY, and JEFF PLAMONDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI, and DOES 1-30, Case No. 24CV090146 (Filed Sept. 4, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 8, 2024. The Northern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07850 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Rosenthal Act. Higher Education is one of the largest holders and servicers of student loans in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Sheila A.G. Armbrust, Esq. Stephen Chang, Esq. Laura V. Herrera, Esq. Amy P. Lally, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-1200 Facsimile: (415) 772-7400 E-mail: sarmbrust@sidley.com stephen.chang@sidley.com laura.herrera@sidley.com alally@sidley.com HINDUJA GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Benoit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- COLE BENOIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HINDUJA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC; and HGS (USA), LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11627 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Benoit was employed by the Defendants as a remote agent. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. provides outsourcing services. The Company offers back office processing, contact center, and information technology services. Hinduja Global Solutions operates worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Thomas V. Nafziger, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com tnafziger@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park E., Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: mh@melmedlaw.com jm@melmedlaw.com HOME DESIGN: Faces Bermudez Suit Over Defective Upholstered Beds ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN BERMUDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HOME DESIGN INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-02376 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2024)is a class action against the Defendant for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of upholstered low profile standard and platform beds, all of which suffered from an identical defect in design. According to the complaint, the bed frame can collapse, posing a crush hazard that can result in severe injury or death. This defect rendered the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose. On Jan. 18, 2024, the Defendant Home Design Inc. and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced a recall of roughly 529,177 beds sold in the United States (the "Products"). Indeed, the Defendant has instructed consumers to stop using the Products. And yet, the Defendant refuses to refund customers that purchased the Products, the suit says. A consumer only has one publicly announced option: to contact the Defendant for purported replacement slats and side rails. But, even this option is illusory. First, the Defendant claimed that shipping of these parts would take several months, meaning that to have any value whatsoever customers would have to find a place to store these large beds for months on end without using them on the hope that one day Defendant's repair might be effective, the suit adds. On Jan. 19, 2024, the day after the recall was announced, the Plaintiff followed the instructions on the recall webpage to get a repair kit, emailed proof of purchase and photo of the bed, photo of the law label on the back of the headrest, and his name and mailing address. As of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff has still not received the putative repair kit. Like the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff believes that virtually every other customer, if not every customer, of Defendant's Products has not received one either. The Plaintiff purchased one of Defendant's Products subject to the recall new for $127.99 (plus tax) within the past four years using his VISA credit card, online. Home Design Inc is a direct seller of quality home furnishings based in Wabash, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com joel@skclassactions.com HOMEADVISOR INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to May 12, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HOMEADVISOR, INC., doing business as Angi, Case No. 1:24-cv-01408-DDD-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Starnella entered an order that the deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings is extended to Jan. 9, 2025. -- The deadline for affirmative expert Feb. 13, 2025 designations is extended to: -- The deadline for rebuttal expert March 17, 2025 designations is extended to: -- The discovery cut-off is extended to: April 15, 2025 -- The deadline to file a motion for May 12, 2025 class certification is extended to: -- The deadline to file motions to July 23, 2025 compel is extended to: -- The dispositive motion deadline Aug. 4, 2025 is extended to: Homeadvisor provides on-line information retrieval services on a contract or fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Oct. 31, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aMz60d at no extra charge.[CC] HONEY POT: Tucker Sues Over Feminine Care Products' False Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHERI TUCKER and JANA RABINOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE HONEY POT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-07911 (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and New York General Business Law and for breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of The Honey Pot feminine care products. The Defendant represents and markets the products as plant-derived. However, in reality, the products contain synthetic ingredients that are not derived from plants. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or at least would have paid less for them, the suit says. The Honey Pot Company, LLC is a manufacturer of feminine care products, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Jennifer L. MacPherson, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com jmacpherson@crosnerlegal.com HUB CYBER SECURITY: Faces Avner Securities Suit in Israeli Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- HUB Cyber Security Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that on March 6, 2023, Mr. Maj'haj Avner filed a class action certification motion against the company and eight additional respondents in the District Court in Tel Aviv, alleging that the company's public announcement that it received irrevocable investment commitments as part of subscription agreements with certain investors, pursuant to which they agreed to subscribe for and purchase an aggregate of 50,000,000 ordinary shares at $10.00 per share for gross proceeds of approximately $50 million, was false. The applicant seeks to represent anyone who purchased the company's ordinary shares after the announcement of a merger agreement dated March 23, 2022, until the end of February 23, 2023, which was the last trading day of the company's ordinary shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The applicant claims personal damages in the amount of NIS 50,752, while the claim for the alleged damage for the members of the affected group was valued at a total of more than NIS 2.5 million. The Motion to Certify also asserts that the company's alleged actions demonstrate a violation of the duties of care and trust imposed on the officers and the directors, a violation of disclosure obligations under the Israeli Securities Law, and a violation of other statutory duties. On January 30, 2024, eight respondents filed a motion to dismiss outright the Motion to Certify as well as a Motion to extend the deadline for filing the Company's response to the Motion to Certify. The court ultimately rejected the Motion to Dismiss at a hearing on March 24, 2024. On June 2, 2024, eight respondents filed their response to the Motion to Certify in which they requested that the confidentiality of certain items of its response be maintained which request was subsequently granted by the court. On July 2, 2024, the Applicant responded to the response filed by the eight respondents and on July 9, 2024, sent the eight respondents a demand for disclosure of documents. At a hearing held on July 10, 2024, the court recommended that three respondents be removed from the Motion to Certify and the applicant waive all cause of action that do not relate to the Securities Law which recommendations the applicant subsequently adopted. At the same hearing, the court ordered five of the respondents to respond to the disclosure request by August 11, 2024 and that if the applicant does not receive a satisfactory response to the disclosure request by such date, the applicant should submit to the court a motion for discovery of documents by September 1, 2024, to which the respondents would be required to respond by September 30, 2024. The company was also instructed to inform the court by September 23, 2024, if it still stands by its motion regarding confidentiality. A preliminary hearing was set last November 4, 2024. HUB Cyber Security Ltd. is a combined hardware and software solutions provider of end-to-end data protection across all phases of data storage and processing. INTERTEK BROADWAY: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. INTERTEK BROADWAY PLAZA LLC, MANTIS CAFE AND JUICE BAR LLC D/B/A MANTIS CAFE AND JUICE BAR and ALIF NORTH MIAMI LLC D/B/A TAJ MAHAL INDIAN CUISINE, Case No. 1:24-cv-24353-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 6, 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 well over 33 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, Defendant have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendant's 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. INTERTEK BROADWAY PLAZA LLC, owned and continue to own a commercial property located in North Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Intuitive Surgical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that it is facing a consolidated class action captioned "In Re: da Vinci Surgical Robot Antitrust Litigation." Three class action complaints were filed against the company in the Northern District of California Court alleging antitrust allegations relating to the service and repair of certain instruments manufactured by the company. A complaint by Larkin Community Hospital was filed on May 20, 2021, a complaint by Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 was filed on July 6, 2021, and a complaint by Kaleida Health was filed on July 8, 2021. The court has consolidated the Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and King County Public Hospital District No. 1 and Kaleida Health cases with the Larkin Community Hospital case, which is now a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint been filed on behalf of each plaintiff named in the earlier-filed cases. On January 14, 2022, Kaleida Health voluntarily dismissed itself as a party to this case. On January 18, 2022, the company filed an answer against the plaintiffs in this matter, and discovery has commenced. With regard to this class action case, on September 7, 2023, the court heard argument on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment and motions related to expert testimony. On March 31, 2024, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on certain market definition issues, and denied Intuitive's motion on the antitrust claims. In denying Intuitive's motion, the court declined to decide whether third-party companies were required to obtain 510(k) clearance for their services with respect to its "EndoWrists," and in the absence of a formal ruling from the FDA on that question denied Intuitive's motion for summary judgment challenging plaintiffs' standing on that ground. There were additional rulings on the expert witness issues as well. In the summary judgment order, the court ruled with plaintiffs that the da Vinci robot and EndoWrist instruments occupy separate product markets for antitrust purposes. The court also ruled that there is an antitrust aftermarket for the repair and replacement of EndoWrist instruments, and that Intuitive holds monopoly power in that aftermarket. The court denied summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of whether soft-tissue surgical robots constitute a relevant antitrust market or are part of a larger market that includes laparoscopic and open surgery for antitrust purposes. On July 30, 2024, the court granted Intuitive’s motion for reconsideration, vacating those portions of the Court’s March 31, 2024 Order granting summary judgment as to the definition of a U.S. market for EndoWrist repair and replacement and Intuitive’s market power in such a market. The court has set a class certification hearing for January 23, 2025. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets da Vinci (R) surgical systems and the Ion (R) endoluminal system based in California. ISAAC OUAZANA: Bid to Strike Unsworn Expert Reports Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Layani, et al., v. Ouazana, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00420 (D. Md., Filed Feb. 19, 2020), the Hon. Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher entered an order denying motion to strike unsworn reports of Plaintiffs' class certification Expert Jeffrey Goldshine. As the Court has repeatedly held, it concurs with the opinion Judge Chasanow issued in Muir v. Applied Integrated Techs., Inc. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only permit a motion to strike matters contained in pleadings, not those contained in other filings or exhibits. The expert report Defendants seek to strike is not a pleading. Accordingly, a motion to strike it is procedurally improper. The proper mechanism for Defendants to suggest that this Court should not afford the purportedly unsworn expert report any weight is in their opposition to Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion. The suit alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.[CC] JACOBS TECHNOLOGY: Geib Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN GEIB is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled John Geib, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jacobs Technology, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00169-AMO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On July 31, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted on Sept. 30, 2024. The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish that a Rule 56(d) continuance is warranted. The appellate case is captioned Geib v. Jacobs Technology, Inc., Case No. 24-6624, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on November 4, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on December 9, 2024; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on January 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN GEIB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: James Michael Treglio, Esq. POTTER HANDY, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 JOHNSON AND WALES: Volquez Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ARIEL VOLQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON AND WALES UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00465 (D.R.I., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of bailment, invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer systems following a data breach learned on July 11, 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. Johnson and Wales University is a private university with its main campus in Providence, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 Email: chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com KELLY SERVICES: Merrill Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM MERRILL, individually and for others similarly situated v. KELLY SERVICES GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-04230 (S.D. Tex., October 31, 2024) is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Merrill and the other day-rate employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Kelly Services does not pay them overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, Kelly Services pays Merrill and the other day-rate employees under its day-rate pay scheme, in willful violation of the federal law. Plaintiff Merrill worked for Kelly Services as a materials manager from approximately February 2020 through August 2022 in Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas. Kelly Services is a staffing company that maintains its headquarters in Troy, Michigan.[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 KIK INTERNATIONAL: Sanders Files Civil Suit in Georgia State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against KIK International LLC, d/b/a KIK Consumer Products, et al. The case is captioned as Sherylonda Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KIK INTERNATIONAL LLC, d/b/a KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, et al., Case No. 24-A-08766-6 (Ga. Super., Gwinnett Cty., October 1, 2024). The case type is stated as Other General Civil. KIK International LLC, doing business as KIK Consumer Products, is a manufacturer of consumer products in Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 Email: dwirth@alonsowirth.com KINDER MORGAN: Pension Fund Mismanagement Suit for Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------ Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that on February 22, 2021, Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On October 8, 2024, the case was referred to the presiding Magistrate Judge for mediation on a schedule that remains to be established. The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans sponsored by the Coastal Corporation, El Paso Corporation and the company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and later amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to plaintiffs' retirement benefits which are now contested on a class-wide basis in the lawsuit. The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible "backloading" or "cutback" of benefits, and seek the same plan modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable. On February 8, 2024, the court certified a class defined as any and all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as declaratory and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed or otherwise specified a calculation of alleged damages. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in Texas. KRUDOS KITCHEN: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Villagrana Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ KARINA VILLAGRANA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRUDOS KITCHEN & KANTINA, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24NWCV04324 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, waiting time penalties, inspecting personnel records, failure to pay reporting time pay, failure to reimburse for business expenditures and losses, unfair business practices, and civil penalties. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server and bartender at Krudos Kitchen's Whittier location from approximately June 25, 2024, to July 14, 2024. Krudos Kitchen & Kantina, Inc. is an operator of restaurants that specialize in Mexican and Japanese fusion cuisine located in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vache A. Thomassian, Esq. Christopher A. Adams, Esq. Caspar Jivalagian, Esq. Levon S. Yepremian, Esq. KJT LAW GROUP, LLP 230 N. Maryland Ave. Suite 306 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: (818) 507-8525 Email: chris@kjtlawgroup.com levon@kjtlawgroup.com vache@kjtlawgroup.com caspar@kjtlawgroup.com LANDMARK ADMIN: Roberts Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- LYNDA ROBERTS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANDMARK ADMIN, LLC and LIBERTY BANKERS INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02740-E (N.D. Tex., October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated individuals' sensitive personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendants' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Landmark Admin, LLC is a third-party administrator for insurance carriers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Jonathan S. Mann, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, BRADLEY & MANN, P.C. 2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: jonm@pittmandutton.com LG ELECTRONICS: Armour Sues Over Defective Refrigerators -------------------------------------------------------- IRMA ARMOUR; CHRISTY BARNETT; STEVEN BORDEN; KRESO BUJAS; VALERIA CALDWELL; REEN CHAI; GINGER COWAN; DELION CUMMINGS; MATTHEW T. DUGAN; EDWINA FRAME; BARBARA GARDINER; LAURIE GILMER; NOAH GORDON; EILEEN GRADY; KATHY L. GREER; CARL HAGLUND; GAIL HAYDEN; SUE HOPFENSITZ; JACQUELYN JOHNSON; KATHLEEN JOHNSON; NICOLE JONES; CYNTHIA KENNEDY; CHAWNTAIN KERMEN; TIM KIVLIN; JESSIE LYNCH; TRENTON MAUK; MARVIN MCANDERSON; KERRY MCLAREN; CHARLEY MILLS; MARCIAL NANEZ; RICHARD NELSON; STEPHANIE NOEL; DAVID RAINTON; JOAN ROWTON; PAULINE SARACENI; MARIELA E. SHAW; NANETTE SOMMERS; TARA SPITTEL; CHRIS STOVALL; BERT TAVARY; STEVEN THOMAS; CHRISTINA THI TRAN; CHARLES VANKIRK; PATRICIA VEGA; SCOTT D. WARD; JEFFREY S. WEIK; and AMY WEISBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10387 (D.N.J., Nov. 8, 2024) alleges that that the Defendant's LG branded Refrigerators are defective because they contain defective linear compressors. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, despite its knowledge that the Class Refrigerators have defective linear compressors, the Defendant has not disclosed the defect to consumers or solved the problem consistent with its warranties. As a result, the Class Refrigerators pose unreasonable risks of property damage and personal injury via food-borne illnesses during everyday use, says the suit. LG Electronics of USA manufactures and distributes consumer electronic products. The Company offers light emission diode televisions, mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, air conditioners, and projectors. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 LIGHTSTONE VALUE: Ayer Suit Removed from Sup. Ct. to D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH N. AYER, MARTHA HARVEY, and LARRY MELTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT I, INC., LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT LLC, LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT II, INC., LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT II LLC, LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT III, INC., LIGHTSTONE VALUE PLUS REIT III LLC, YEHUDA I. ANGSTER, HOWARD E. FRIEDMAN, DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, ALAN RETKINSKI, and GEORGE R. WHITTEMORE, Case No. OCN-L-002385-24 (Filed Sept. 17, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov. 7, 2024. The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-10371 to the proceeding. The suit alleges that the Defendants "induced" the shareholders of the REIT Defendants to vote in favor of the "2023 Charter Amendments" that became effective in 2023 and changed provisions in the REIT Defendants' respective charters. The Plaintiffs are alleged shareholders of Lightstone Value Plus REIT I, Inc., Lightstone Value Plus REIT II, Inc., and Lightstone Value Plus REIT III, Inc. REIT is a real-estate investment trust, a company that invests in and manages a portfolio of real estate and distributes income to its shareholders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. Jordan A. Cafritz, Esq. 1101 Vermont Ave. NW Suite 700. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 E-mail: denright@zlk.com jcafritz@zlk.com - and - Christopher J. Gray, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER GRAY, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 E-mail: chris@investorlawers.net The Defendants are represented by: Jeremy B. Stein, Esq. HARTMANN DOHERTY ROSA BERMAN & BULBULIA, LLP 433 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 1002 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 441-9056 E-mail: jstein@hdrbb.com LINKEDIN CORP: L.B. Privacy Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as L.B. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 24CV445533, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, on September 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-06832-EJD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all LinkedIn account holders in the United States who purchased Semaglutide medication on www.reflexmd.com. According to Plaintiff, through the use of the LinkedIn Insight Tag, LinkedIn intentionally intercepted sensitive and confidential communications between ReflexMD and its customers. Based on these allegations, the plaintiff asserts that LinkedIn eavesdropped and/or recorded confidential communications through an electronic amplifying or recording device in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and intentionally invaded Plaintiff's and Class Members' privacy rights under the California Constitution. LinkedIn Corp. is a business and employment-focused social media platform that works through websites and mobile apps.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq. Aarti Reddy, Esq. Amy M. Smith, Esq. Morgan Lewis, Esq. Julia M. Irwin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: jgutkin@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com amsmith@cooley.com melewis@cooley.com - and - Jorge L. Sarmiento, Esq. COOLEY LLP 55 Hudson Yards, Fl. 43 New York, NY 10001-2157 Telephone: (212) 479-6000 Facsimile: (212) 479-6275 E-mail: jsarmiento@cooley.com MARSH ELECTRONICS: Xiong Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Supervisors ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL XIONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARSH ELECTRONICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01447-BHL (E.D. Wis., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The Plaintiff worked as a supervisor at the Defendant's Milwaukee, Wisconsin location from June 24, 2024, until September 9, 2024. Marsh Electronics, Inc. is an electronics company, with a principal office address in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 Facsimile: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com MAXLINEAR INC: Court Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ MaxLinear, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2024, that on August 31, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California captioned "Water Island Event-Driven Fund v. MaxLinear, Inc.," No. 23-cv-01607 (S.D. Cal.), against MaxLinear and certain of its current officers, alleging two claims: (1) an alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) an alleged violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The case was dismissed without prejudice. On December 20, 2023, the court appointed the lead plaintiffs, who filed the consolidated complaint on February 15, 2024. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omitted material facts that MaxLinear had a duty to disclose, concerning the company's intention to close the merger with Silicon Motion. On August 28, 2024, the court granted the defendants a motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue MaxLinear and its officers. MaxLinear, Inc. is a provider of communications systems-on-chip, or SoC, solutions used in broadband, mobile and wireline infrastructure, data center, and industrial and multi-market applications. MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Askeland Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH ASKELAND, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05402-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Askeland case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Lee Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO LEE, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05399-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with liver cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Lee case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Lindsey Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFFORD LINDSEY, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05403-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Lindsey case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Page Says ------------------------------------------------------------ ALEX PAGE, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05401-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Page case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Faces Morlan Suit Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID MORLAN, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05395-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Morlan case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Humphries Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES HUMPHRIES, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05398-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular and prostate cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Humphries case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Fuller Suit Alleges Exposure to Toxic Chemicals --------------------------------------------------------- ERIK FULLER, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05393-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with testicular cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Fuller case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Robinson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALVIN ROBINSON, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05400-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Robinson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Smith Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- EDRICK SMITH, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05394-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Smith case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Vlaming Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY VLAMING, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05404-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder cancer, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Vlaming case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Wills Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES WILLS, Plaintiff 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.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05397-RMG (D.S.C., September 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams and firefighter turnout gear containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid disease, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Wills case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 METALS COMPANY: Faces Lin Class Suit Over 13.23% Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TMC THE METALS COMPANY INC., GERRARD BARON, and CRAIG SHESKY, Case No. 2:24-cv-09684 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired TMC securities between May 12, 2023 and March 25, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. In February 2023, TMC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. ("NORI"), entered into a strategic partnership with Low Carbon Royalties Inc. ("LCR"). Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: TMC maintained deficient internal controls over financial reporting; and, as a result, the Company inaccurately classified the sale of future revenue attributable to the LCR Partnership as deferred income rather than debt, the Plaintiff avers. On March 25, 2024, TMC disclosed in a filing with the SEC that the Company's financial statements for the first three quarters of 2023 "should be restated and, accordingly, should no longer be relied upon," citing the "re-evaluation of whether the offsetting entry to the proceeds it received from LCR should be classified as debt or deferred income." On this news, TMC's stock price fell $0.205 per share, or 13.23%, to close at $1.345 per share on March 26, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff acquired TMC securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures. TMC is a deep-sea minerals exploration company focused on the collection, processing, and refining of polymetallic nodules.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com MOBILELINK SOUTH: Markwell Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation -------------------------------------------------------------- TIFFANY MARKWELL, Plaintiff v. MOBILELINK SOUTH ILLINOIS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03314-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., October 31, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for Defendant's failure to pay minimum and final wages for all hours worked, and for retaliatory acts to Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee under the role of territory manager from April 2023 until her unlawful termination for protecting her wage and hour rights on July 17, 2024. Mobilelink South Illinois, LLC is a wireless service provider offering a range of cell phones, accessories, plans, and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8180 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com - and - Chad W. Eisenback, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (331) 307-7632 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com MUSKEGON, MI: Grissom Brings Appeal to Mich. Ct. of Appeals ----------------------------------------------------------- STANLEY GRISSOM has filed an appeal in his lawsuit entitled Stanley Grissom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Muskegon County Board Of Commissioners, et al., Defendants, in the Muskegon Circuit Court. The appellate case is captioned Stanley Grissom vs. County of Muskegon, Case No. 24-373120, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant STANLEY GRISSOM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Philip L. Ellison, Esq. OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC 530 West Saginaw St. Hemlock, MI 48626 Telephone: (989) 642-0055 Defendants-Appellees MUSKEGON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al. are represented by: Allan C. Vanderlaan, Esq. 2851 Charlevoix Drive, S.E., Suite 203 Grand Rapids, MI 49546 Telephone: (616) 975-7470 Email: avanderlaan@cmda-law.com NATHAN'S FAMOUS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATHAN'S FAMOUS SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08308 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant, for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://nathans-famous.myshopify.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on July 1, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Nathan's Famous Green/White Oversized Golf Umbrella from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. operates the Nathan's Famous online retail store, as well as the Nathan's Famous interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. 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 NEW FORTRESS: Anderson Files Suit Over Share Price Decline ---------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW FORTRESS ENERGY INC., WESLEY ROBERT EDENS, CHRISTOPHER S. GUINTA, and ANDREW DETE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08356 (S.D.N.Y., November 1, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired New Fortress securities between December 12, 2022 and August 8, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning New Fortress' full year 2023 fiscal results and full year 2024 outlook which was based in material part on Defendants' Illustrative Goal to double metrics in the year 2024, complete terminals and power plants in Brazil and Puerto Rico, and execution on the Fast LNG project in Mexico. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning New Fortress' Fast LNG projects in Mexico, including the FLNG 1 project, says the suit. On August 9, 2024, the truth emerged when New Fortress published a press release announcing disappointing adjusted EBITDA second quarter 2024 highlights and lowered its guidance for the second half of 2024 accordingly. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to New Fortress' revelation. The price of New Fortress' common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $17.02 per share on August 8, 2024, New Fortress' stock price fell to $13.00 per share on August 9, 2024, the suit alleges. New Fortress Energy Inc. is an American liquefied natural gas company. The Company owns and operates natural gas and LNG infrastructure and an integrated fleet of ships and other logistics assets to deliver energy solutions to customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com NEWS CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust & Competition Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- News 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 subsidiary, HarperCollins, continues to defend itself from the antitrust and competition laws class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Beginning in February 2021, a number of purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "N.Y. District Court") against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") and certain publishers, including the Company’s subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers, L.L.C. ("HarperCollins" and together with the other publishers, the "Publishers"), alleging violations of antitrust and competition laws. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2023, the N.Y. District Court dismissed the complaints in one of the cases with prejudice and in March 2024, the court dismissed the complaint against the Publishers in the remaining case with prejudice. However, the plaintiffs' time to appeal the N.Y. District Court's decision to dismiss in the latter case does not expire until the complaint against Amazon in that case has been finally determined. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these actions, HarperCollins believes it has been compliant with applicable laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. News Corporation (Nasdaq: NWS, NWSA; ASX: NWS, NWSLV) is a global, diversified media and information services company focused on creating and distributing authoritative and engaging content and other products and services. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------ Norfolk Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that a securities class action lawsuit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) initially filed in the Southern District of Ohio alleging multiple securities law violations but since transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, a securities class action lawsuit under the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) filed in the Southern District of New York alleging misstatements in association with its debt offerings, and six shareholder derivative complaints filed in Virginia state court asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment in connection with safety of the company's operations, among other claims. On February 2, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Securities Act lawsuit, and on July 26, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation to the district judge, recommending that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed on August 9, 2024, and plaintiffs' response to defendants' objections were filed on August 23, 2024. A decision on the motion to dismiss remains pending. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Exchange Act lawsuit on April 25, 2024, and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 24, 2024. Norfolk Southern is a transportation company, and a major transporter of industrial products, including agriculture, forest and consumer products, chemicals, and metals and construction materials through its railways. It serves every major container port and operates extensive intermodal networks. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settlement in Principle Reached in Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 18, 2024, that on April 9, 2024, the company announced that it reached an agreement in principle to settle a consolidated putative class action pending in the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) in which plaintiffs allege various claims, including negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, and nuisance, and seeking as relief compensatory and punitive damages, medical monitoring and business losses, for $600 million. Said action is with regards to a February train car derailment incident in East Palestine, Ohio. The putative class is defined by reference to a class area covering a 30-mile radius. On July 12, 2023, the company filed a third-party complaint bringing in multiple parties involved in the incident. Fact discovery ended on February 5, 2024. The court denied in part and granted in part all motions to dismiss, as to the plaintiffs' case and as to its third-party complaint, on March 13, 2024. On April 9, 2024, the company announced that it reached an agreement in principle to settle the Ohio class action for $600 million. The settlement agreement does not resolve, and expressly preserves, its third-party claims in the third-party complaint. The court granted final approval of the settlement on September 27, 2024, which was subsequently appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The settlement agreement will resolve all class action claims within a 20-mile radius from the derailment and, for those residents who choose to participate, personal injury claims within a 10-mile radius from the derailment. The company made a partial payment of the settlement on October 11, 2024 in the amount of $310 million, however, that payment, including timing, is dependent upon resolution of any appeals to the settlement. Norfolk Southern is a transportation company, and a major transporter of industrial products, including agriculture, forest and consumer products, chemicals, and metals and construction materials through its railways. It serves every major container port and operates extensive intermodal networks. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA: S.S. Sues Over Private Health Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------ S.S., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ADVANCED SURGERY CENTER, LP, d/b/a RETINAL CONSULTANTS MEDICAL GROUP AND RETINA CONSULTANTS OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02700-SCR (E.D. Cal., September 27, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Constitution, and the California Penal Code for disregarding the privacy rights of the Plaintiff and other patients who used its web properties. In order to market, sell, and provide its healthcare offerings, the Defendants own, maintain and operate websites for each of its practices, including for Defendant Retinal Consultants Medical Group, https://www.retinalmd.com/, which also operates a patient portal. The complaint alleges that Defendants disregarded the privacy rights of its patients by installing, configuring and using pixels and other tracking technologies on its web properties to collect and divulge their personally identifiable information(PII) and protected health information(PHI) to Meta Platform Inc. d/b/a Facebook, Google LLC and Alphabet, Inc., and other social media platforms. Unbeknownst to users and without their authorization or informed consent, the Defendants installed Facebook's Meta Pixel and other invisible third-party tracking technology on its Web Properties in order to intercept users' PII and PHI with the express purpose of disclosing that private information to third parties such as Meta and/or Google, says the suit. Northern California Advanced Surgery Center, LP is a network of retina practices that provide care across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - John R. Parker, Jr. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140 Sacramento, CA 95821 Telephone: (916) 616-2936 E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com OP PHARMACY: Faces Russo Suit Over Customers' Compromised Info -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER RUSSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OP PHARMACY, LLC a/ka/ ONE POINT PATIENT CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00649-RGJ (W.D. Ky., November 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory/injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its computer systems following a data breach detected on August 8, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, the suit asserts. OP Pharmacy, LLC, also known as One Point Patient Care, LLC, is a provider of pharmacy services, with its principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie Pescia, Esq. SIRI GLIMSTAD LLP 101 North Seventh Street, #827 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (772) 783-8463 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Moore Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RIQUELLE MOORE, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARADISE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC. d/b/a Magic City, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, and MARVIN LEWIS BROWN, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-04389-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 27, 2024) is an action for damages and other relief brought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act as a result of Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff the minimum wage and overtime wages. The Plaintiff's claims are that Defendants: (a) misclassified her as independent contractor rather than employee; (b) failed to pay her at least the federal minimum wage for each hour she worked at Defendants' adult entertainment club known as Magic City; (c) failed to pay her at least one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for each hour she worked at Magic City over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and (d) seized her tips in violation of Tip Income Protection Act and the FLSA. The Plaintiff and the Class members are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Magic City in Atlanta, Georgia at any time starting three years before this complaint was filed, up to the present. Paradise Entertainment Group, Inc., d/b/a Magic City, is an adult entertainment club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com PARK HOTELS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Gil Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN CARLOS GIL, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARK HOTELS & RESORTS INC. a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Hilton Worldwide Inc. and DOUBLETREE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, d/b/a DoubleTree Penn Station, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10208 (D.N.J., October 31, 2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the regulations implementing the ADA. The Defendants own and/or operate, inter alia, a hotel at the Commercial Property, which is held out to the public as "DoubleTree Penn Station" and/or "DoubleTree by Hilton Newark Penn Station." According to the complaint, the Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing, inter alia, to have accessible facilities by January 26, 1992. A list of the violations that Plaintiff encountered during his visits to Defendants' commercial property include, but is not limited to, hotel guest rooms, toilet rooms, dining spaces, fitness center, and parking & exterior routes. The Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated blind, will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested herein, asserts the complaint. In order to remedy this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendants' places of public accommodation in order to determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the ADA, it adds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL 1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #239 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 708-7550 E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com - and - George W. Wickhorst, III, Esq. ADADVOCATES LLC 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 481-9809 E-mail: george@adadvocates.org PARKMOBILE LLC: Settlement Class Gets Certification in Baker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER BAKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. PARKMOBILE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02182-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve Jones entered an order granting motion for class certification for settlement purposes only: "All individuals that received or were otherwise sent notice that their Personal Information was potentially compromised due to ParkMobile's Data Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class is the judge presiding over this Action and members of his direct family, and Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt- Out Deadline. The Court finds that Plaintiffs Tyler Baker, Miriam George, Emma Jackson, Sait Kurmangaliyev, Gregory Manson, Heriberto Travieso, and Jack Weaver will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the Court finds that MaryBeth V. Gibson, Gibson Consumer Law Group, LLC and Arthur M. Murray, Murray Law Firm, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). The Court appoints Angeion Group, LLC, as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility for class notice and settlement administration. ParkMobile is a mobile and web app providing parking payments in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DPQeje at no extra charge.[CC] PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: Settlement in Securities Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- Provident Financial Services, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2023, that the parties in a purported class action complaint mediated on May 28, 2024, and agreed in principle to a settlement resolving a dispute with the bank contributing $1.85 million to a settlement fund. The motion for preliminary approval of the settlement was filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on September 23, 2024 and the court approved the settlement on October 11, 2024. On May 2, 2022, said complaint was filed alleging that the bank wrongfully assessed overdraft fees related to debit card transactions. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as an alleged violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class of all the bank's checking account customers who were charged overdraft fees on transactions that were authorized into a positive available balance. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, an injunction, and other relief as the court deems proper for the plaintiff and the proposed class. The parties had an initial mediation meeting on October 20, 2023. Provident Financial Services, Inc. is the holding company for Provident Bank. The latter emphasizes personal service and customer convenience in attending to the financial needs of businesses, individuals and families in New Jersey, New York, and eastern Pennsylvania. RALGO DORAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Brito Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RALGO DORAL LLC; THE COFFEE POT THE COFFEE POT USA INC.; and ESPECIALIDADES ORIENTALES CORP D/B/A SALON CANTON RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24452-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 12, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' commercial plaza located at 9662 NW 25 th Street, Doral, Florida 33172, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Ralgo Doral LLC owns and operates a commercial restaurant Doral, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Doral, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com RENEWABLE INNOVATIONS: Faces Securities Suit in Utah ---------------------------------------------------- Renewable Innovations, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for October 15, 2024, that on September 27, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against the company, Renewable Innovations Corp., Robert L. Mount and Lynn Barney by Alex Aliksanyan, Thomas Grbelja, William McLeod, and three others alleging violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, against the individual defendants for breach of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and breach of fiduciary duty, and asking for an injunction blocking the an Asset Purchase Agreement by and between the company and Renewable Energy, LLC. Pursuant to said agreement, the company sold assets of its renewable innovation business, including the manufacturing, selling and renting of alternative energy and hybrid energy systems including AC and DC power systems, which includes the integration of fuel cells and technology using fuel cells as a source of power. Renewable Innovations Inc is a clean, hydrogen fuel cell energy systems company. REVENTICS LLC: Henderson Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- PAULA HENDERSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Paula Henderson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Reventics, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-CV-00586-MEH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants following a data breach for (1) public disclosure of private information, including Social Security numbers and medical information; (2) increased spam communications; (3) diminution of the value the Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"); (4) emotional distress; (5) actual fraud; and (6) future impending injury. On Dec. 15, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Michael E. Hegarty granted on Sept. 30, 2024. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the Plaintiffs failed to meet the Article III requirements. The appellate case is captioned Henderson, et al. v. Reventics, et al., Case No. 24-1428, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on October 30, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants PAULA HENDERSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. Clint C. Watson, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 - and - Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq. COPELAND STAIR VALZ & LOVELL 40 Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 727-0307 - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN, WILLEY, ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 834-4712 - and - Carl Vincent Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ 111 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60077 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 - and - Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI 980 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 - and - Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 - and - Mason Barney, Esq. Tyler James Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 - and - Mark E. Saliman, Esq. SALIMAN LAW 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80220 Telephone: (720) 907-7652 - and - Amber Love Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip Joseph Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Defendants-Appellees REVENTICS, LLC, et al. are represented by: Aurora Temple Barnes, Esq. DLA PIPER 1900 North Pearl Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 743-4544 - and - Daniel Joseph Hayes, Esq. Desiree F. Moore, Esq. VENABLE 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 820-3434 - and - David Mitchell Ross, Jr., Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER 1500 K Street, Northwest, Suite 330 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 626-7687 - and - Michael J. Stortz, Esq. K&L GATES 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 882-8200 - and - Kimberly A. Viergever, Esq. Ryan Williams, Esq. WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER 1225 17th Street, Suite 1700 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 572-5300 RHEEM MANUFACTURING: West Sues Over Drain Valves' Design Defects ---------------------------------------------------------------- VANESSA WEST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY and MELET PLASTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09686 (C.D. Cal., November 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, strict liability/manufacturing and design defect and failure to warn, negligence, negligent failure to warn, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of certain water heater drain valves with a rubber seal and plastic stem. According to the complaint, the Defendants market these valves as suitable for use in residential and commercial applications, specifically for water heater drainage. However, contrary to the Defendants' representations, the products are defectively designed and/or manufactured, and unsuitable for their intended purpose. The products incorporate a rubber seal and plastic stem inappropriate for water heater use. As the rubber seal and plastic stem degrade during ordinary use, the products fail and begin to leak. As a result of the defects in the products, the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages, including significant real and personal property damage caused by flooding resulting from failures of the products, the suit alleges. Rheem Manufacturing Company is a manufacturer of water heaters, heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, with a principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Melet Plastics, Inc. is a manufacturer of plastic products, with a principal place of business located in Fargo, North Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edward Cole, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: sec@colevannote.com - and - Ronald W. Armstrong, II, Esq. THE ARMSTRONG FIRM, PLLC 109 Yoalana St., Suite 210 Boerne, TX 78006 Telephone: (210) 277-0542 Email: rwaii@tafpllc.com RICKY SHULER: Baker Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NMMWA ---------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL BAKER v. RICKY SHULER TRUCKING INC. AND RICKY SHULER, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-01144-JFR-KK (D.N.M., Nov. 7, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked out of Defendants' facilities and drove for the Defendants in New Mexico. During her work for the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly worked well in excess of 70 hours per week. The Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at any time during the three years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff and the other truck drivers one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 as required by the NMMWA and the FLSA. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer from a loss of income and other damages, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a truck driver in the State of New Mexico within the three (3) years preceding the filing of this lawsuit. Ricky Shuler provides crude oil hauling services in the southwest region of the United States, including New Mexico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin W. Allen, Esq. WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP 440 Louisiana, Suite 590 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 224-1744 Facsimile: (713) 600-0034 E-mail: ballen@wallaceallen.com ROGERS HEATING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Blanton Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL BLANTON; MARK CLINE; and TIMOTHY McFEATERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROGERS HEATING & COOLING, INC.; JAR INVESTMENTS, LLC; JOSEPH ALLEN ROGERS; and ALYSSA ROGERS, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00046-TTC-CKM (W.D. Va., Nov. 12, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers. Rogers Heating & Cooling offers heating, air conditioning, and electrical in South Boston, VA and surrounding areas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig Juraj 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 Email: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Woebbeking Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Notice ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI WOEBBEKING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHARI'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, GATHER HOLDINGS GUARANTEE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01871-CL (D. Ore., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing on or about October 20, 2024. Shari's Management Corporation is a restaurant chain operator based in Oregon. Gather Holdings Guarantee, LLC is the owner of Shari's Management Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan R. Ring, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (725) 235-9750 Email: Nring@stranchlaw.com SHOP MA INC: Moody Sues Over Illegal Recording of Communication ------------------------------------------------------------------- DINO MOODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOP MA, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-09430 (C.D. Cal., October 31, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a trap and trace process on its website, www.shop.com, by deploying the TikTok Software designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors. As such, the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the website. The Defendant did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the class members before using trap and trace technology to identify users of its website, and has violated the law, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated persons within California who within the statute of limitations period: (1) communicated with Defendant via the chat feature on Defendant's website using cellular or landline telephony, and (2) whose communications were recorded and/or eavesdropped upon without prior consent. Shop Ma, Inc. is a North Carolina corporation that owns, operates, and/or controls www.shop.com, an online platform that sells a wide variety of products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com SUPERIOR STAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lenzini Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- JASON LENZINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUPERIOR STAR, LLC; and STARCORP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-02476 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 12, 2024) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Plaintiff Lenzini was employed by the Defendants as a staff. Superior Star, LLC owns and operates Hardee's franchise stores in the state of Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George O. Suggs, Esq. Luke A. Klein, Esq. SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER 555 Washington Ave, Ste. 520 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 621-2626 Facsimile: (314) 621-2378 Email: gos@scwattorney.com lak@scwattorney.com THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Tafoya Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN TAFOYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, and PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01513 (E.D. Mo., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated Presbyterian Health Care Services' patients stored within Thompson Coburn's computer systems following a data breach on or around May 28, 2024. The Defendants 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. Thompson Coburn, LLP is a law firm, with its principal place of business in Saint Louis, Missouri. Presbyterian Healthcare Services is a healthcare services provider, with its principal place of business in Albuquerque, New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: raina@straussborrelli.com TILRAY BRANDS: Salama Sues Over Incorrect Info in Proxy Statement ----------------------------------------------------------------- NABIL SALAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRWIN D. SIMON, JODI BUTTS, DAVID CLANACHAN, JOHN M. HERHALT, DAVID HOPKINSON, THOMAS LOONEY, RENAH PERSOFSKY, and TILRAY BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2024-1124 (Del. Ch., October 31, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory relief and breach of fiduciary duty under the Delaware General Corporation Law. According to the complaint, in the definitive proxy statement that the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2024 in connection with the annual meeting of Tilray stockholders to be held on November 21, 2024, the Board incorrectly informed stockholders that a lower, votes-cast standard applied to a proposal to approve an increase in the number of shares of common stock authorized under the Fourth Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Tilray Brands purportedly from 1,198,000,000 to 1,416,000,000 (the "2024 Authorized Shares Proposal"). The Board also made related incorrect disclosures concerning the effect that abstentions and broker non-votes, if any, would have on the 2024 Authorized Shares Proposal. In an attempt to fix these errors at minimum expense, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the Board detailing the issues and demanding their correction. In his Demand, the Plaintiff identified the incorrect language in the 2024 Proxy, pointed to the relevant Certificate language requiring that "the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the voting power of all of the outstanding shares of stock" be voted in favor of any propose to increase or decrease the authorized number of shares, and discussed the text and legislative synopsis of Section 242(d). The perfunctory Rejection of the Demand, as well as its prior application of the wrong voting standard to the 2023 Authorized Shares Proposal, make it clear that the Board intends to tabulate stockholder votes in accordance with the incorrect voting standard identified in the 2024 Proxy, notes the complaint. Because the Company is poised to proceed with a defective vote predicated upon materially false disclosures, Plaintiff brings this action seeking expedited relief to compel corrective disclosures and ultimately keep the Board from compromising Tilray's capital structure. The Plaintiff also brings this action to remedy the harm inflicted on Tilray and its stockholders resulting from the Board improperly increasing the number of shares of common stock available for issuance based on the (failed) 2023 Authorized Shares Proposal. Tilray Brands, Inc. is a global lifestyle consumer products company that maintains its principal executive offices in Leamington, Ontario.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: F. Troupe Mickler IV, Esq. ASHBY & GEDDES, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 - and - William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 141 Tompkins Ave, Suite 404 Pleasantville, NY 10570 Telephone: (212) 231-1500 - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. Kaskela Law LLC 18 Campus Blvd., Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Stays Davtian Suit Pending Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TADEH DAVTIAN, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., CHECKR, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05195-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order: -- granting Defendants' motions to compel arbitration as to Davtian's individual claims, -- granting Defendants' request to dismiss Davtian's class claims, and -- staying this action pending arbitration. Accordingly, the Court holds that the parties here clearly and unmistakably delegated the issue of arbitrability -- i.e., "all arguments going to the scope or enforceability of the arbitration provision" -- to an arbitrator. The Court grants Defendants' motion to compel arbitration as to Davtian’s individual claims. the Plaintiff Davtian, individually and on behalf of a putative class, alleges that Defendants failed to obtain his authorization and to make disclosures required to run a background check under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). Uber provides ride-hailing services, courier services, food delivery, and freight transport. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2J3GuQ at no extra charge.[CC] UIPATH INC: Gupta Dismissed from Severt Suit -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Severt et al v. UiPath, Inc. et al. (re UiPath, Inc. Securities Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-07908-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order that the Defendants' April 23, 2024, motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part. -- All claims against Defendant Ashim Gupta are dismissed. -- All claims based on a violation of section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Exchange Act are dismissed. The plaintiff in this putative class action asserts that UiPath, Inc. misrepresented the difficulties it was encountering in marketing its products and its competitive environment when it published the offering documents for its IPO on April 21, 2021, and over the course of the following seventeen months. UiPath is a global software company that makes robotic process automation software. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 4, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ucUVAR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq. Jeffrey P. Jacobson, Esq. SCOTT & SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 The Defendant are represented by: Edmund Polubinski, Esq. Patrick Blakemore, Esq. Marie Killmond, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 UNITED HEALTHCARE: Must Oppose Class Certification by Jan. 21, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elaine Johnson on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend the Case Management and Scheduling Order as follows: 1. The Defendant's response in opposition to class certification is due 43 days after Dec. 9, 2024, or Jan. 21, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff's rebuttal in support of class certification shall be due within 28 days after service of any response in opposition to class certification. United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11MZQY at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------------ United Parks & Resorts 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 Quinton Burns class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 27, 2022, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company captioned Quinton Burns individually and Next Friend of K.B., a minor v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-09941. The complaint states the putative class consists of Quinton Burns and K.B. Burns and similarly situated Black people. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding an additional seven adult and seven minor class representative plaintiffs in which they allege the class consists of themselves and similarly situated minority persons and also disclosed an additional 89 families and 125 children represented by Plaintiffs' counsel who are allegedly members of the purported class (the "First Amended Complaint"). The First Amended Complaint alleges the Company engaged in disparate treatment of class members based on their race and in so doing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Pennsylvania common law. The First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs as well declarative and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts and a motion to strike certification of the class. The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the negligent training and hiring claims, without prejudice as to the negligent supervising claim, and denied the motion as to the 42 USC 1981 and negligence per se claims. The plaintiffs sought certification of their class and to amend the operative complaint to reassert the negligent supervising claim. The Company filed a motion to strike class certification and a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in part. In particular, while the court allowed the plaintiffs to reassert their negligent supervising claims, the court granted summary judgment with regard to all eight individual plaintiffs as to those claims. As to the alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the court has granted summary judgment against two of the eight plaintiffs, leaving six individual plaintiffs with such claims. A jury trial of these cases commenced on May 6, 2024. On May 8, 2024, counsel for the Plaintiffs made the Court aware of certain questionable conduct by one of the plaintiffs. The Court informed counsel for the Company of such conduct and, as a result, the Company moved for a mistrial which the Court granted. The Court also severed from the main case the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff whose alleged conduct led to the request for a mistrial. The main case was reset for trial which commenced on September 9, 2024 and on September 17, 2024 the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company on all counts. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on October 16, 2024 which is pending. On September 4, 2024, the Company filed a motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs' counsel to recover the excess costs and attorneys' fees caused by the mistrial. The Court denied that motion on September 24, 2024, and the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking review of that order on October 21, 2024. The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously. United Parks & Resorts Inc is an American theme park and entertainment company headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN] UNITED STATES OIL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ United States Oil Fund LP 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 consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas (the "Lucas Class Action"). The Court thereafter consolidated the Lucas Class Action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. The consolidated class action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Lucas Class Complaint"). The Amended Lucas Class Complaint asserts claims under the 1933 Act, the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The Amended Lucas Class Complaint named as defendants USCF, USO, John P. Love, Stuart P. Crumbaugh, Nicholas D. Gerber, Andrew F Ngim, Robert L. Nguyen, Peter M. Robinson, Gordon L. Ellis, and Malcolm R. Fobes III, as well as the marketing agent, ALPS Distributors, Inc., and the Authorized Participants: ABN Amro, BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Company, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation, Morgan Stanley & Company Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, UBS Securities LLC, and Virtu Financial BD LLC. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its claims against BNP Paribas Securities Corporation, Citadel Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities USA LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Company, Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, SG Americas Securities LLC, and UBS Securities LLC. USCF, USO, and the individual defendants in In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation intend to vigorously contest such claims and have moved for their dismissal. United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland, California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"), which grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF"). UPSTART HOLDINGS: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Opposition Memo ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crain v. Upstart Holdings, Inc. et al. (RE UPSTART HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:22-cv-02935-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order sealing (i) portions of the Defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs' updated motion for class certification, and (ii) Exhibits 1-11 and 14 attached to the declaration of Benjamin M. Crosson in support of the Defendants' memorandum. Upstart is an AI lending platform that partners with banks and credit unions to provide consumer loans using non-traditional variables, such as education and employment, to predict creditworthiness. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4icJ8A at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN LLP 30799 Pinetree Rd., Suite 345 Pepper Pike, OH 44124 Telephone: (213) 410-2620 E-mail: tom.warren@warrenterzian.com - and - Caz Hashemi, Esq. Benjamin M. Crosson, Esq. John I. Karin, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 E-mail: chashemi@wsgr.com bcrosson@wsgr.com jkarin@wsgr.com VGW HOLDINGS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESTINY KENNEDY, On behalf of herself and all Other Georgia citizens similarly situated, v. VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW LUCKYLAND INC., and VGW GP LIMITED, Case No. 1:24-cv-02184-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class until 30 days after this Court rules on Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, to transfer, which is due Nov. 14, 2024. The Plaintiff filed her motion to certify class on Oct. 25, 2024. Pursuant to LR 7.1(B), Defendants' response is due Nov. 8, 2024, before Defendants are even due to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Because Defendants' motion will be dispositive of whether this action may proceed in this Court, Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class should not be briefed until after this Court rules on Defendants' motion. The Defendants' position is consistent with LR 23.1(B), which states that if a motion to dismiss is filed in a putative class action case, the plaintiff need not file her motion to certify the class until "thirty (30) days after all defendants have filed an answer to the complaint." The Defendants should not be required to respond to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification before this Court has ruled on Defendants' dispositive motion, much less before Defendants have even had an opportunity to respond to the complaint. VGW Holdings is a developer and distributor of online social casino and poker games. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5XCBh7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Sullivan, Esq. Nicole Archambault, Esq. FINCH McCRANIE, LLP 229 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 658-9070 E-mail: msullivan@finchmccranie.com narchambault@finchmccranie.com - and - Gregory D. Beaman, Esq. Behnam Dayanim, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019-6142 Telephone: (212) 506-5000 E-mail: gbeaman@orrick.com bdayanim@orrick.com WALMART INC: Can File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Devane v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00709 (M.D. Ala., Filed Dec. 21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Emily C. Marks entered an order granting Walmart's unopposed motion for leave to file its opposition to class certification and accompanying exhibits under seal. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as apparel, house wares, and small appliances.[CC] WALMART INC: Fact Discovery in Faison Due May 12, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERNITA FAISON, v. WALMART INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01024-DJC-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures If not already completed, all parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) no later than Nov. 26, 2024. -- All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than May 12, 2025. -- Expert Discovery Plaintiff shall disclose initial experts and produce reports regarding class certification in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than June 11, 2025. -- Defendants shall disclose initial experts and produce reports regarding class certification in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Aug. 11, 2025. -- All expert discovery regarding class certification shall be completed no later than Sept. 10, 2025. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pm1og7 at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Hummel Complaint Dismissed with Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER LYNN HUMMEL, SHAWN DAVID HUMMEL, SR, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:23-cv-02002-CCW (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order that the Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted such that Hummels' complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Sorace Release is enforceable and bars the Hummels from pursuing their claims in this case. Therefore, the Court will grant Wells Fargo's motion, and dismiss the Hummels' claims. Further, because amendment would be futile, the claims will be dismissed with prejudice. Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. On April 9, 2024, the Hummels filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint2 against Wells Fargo in this Court, alleging that the Error Notices they received violate Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"). Wells Fargo operates as a bank. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4IQG0e at no extra charge.[CC] WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Court OK's PAGA Class Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- 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 Superior Court of San Diego County, California approved the PAGA class suit settlement on October 16, 2024. On May 24, 2022, a former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) suit, not individually, but as representative of all Wintrust Mortgage’s California hourly employees, against Wintrust Mortgage in the Superior Court of San Diego County, California. Plaintiff alleges Wintrust Mortgage failed to provide: (i) accurate sick leave accrual and pay; (ii) overtime wages; (iii) accurately itemized wage statements; (iv) meal breaks and meal premiums; (v) timely payment of earned wages; (vi) payment of all earned wages; and (vii) payment of all vested vacation hours. Wintrust Mortgage disputes the validity of Plaintiff’s claims and believes, to the extent there were defects in complying with California law governing the payment of compensation to Plaintiff, such errors would have been de minimis. Plaintiff also has an arbitration agreement with a collective and class action waiver and on January 19, 2023, Wintrust Mortgage moved to compel arbitration. The court stayed litigation pending mediation, which was held on May 13, 2024. The parties agreed to settle the dispute for an immaterial amount. On October 16, 2024, the court entered an order approving the settlement. 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] XPEL INC: Continues to Defend Adishian Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ XPEL 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 Adishian securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On August 8,2024, a securities class action complaint, Greg Adishian v. XPEL, Inc., et. al., case number 5:24-cv-00873, was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its officers for making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial outlook. Management intends to vigorously defend against this action. XPEL is a provider of protective films and coatings, including automotive paint protection films, surface protection films, automotive and architectural window films, and ceramic coatings.[BN] XTO ENERGY: Class Cert Bid Filing in Kriley Suit Due Nov. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY and TINA KRILEY, v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an amended case management order as follows: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion Nov. 25, 2024 for class certification, memorandum in support and all supporting evidence on or before: -- Defendant shall file its memorandum in Jan. 10, 2025 opposition to class certification and all supporting evidence on or before: -- The Plaintiffs' reply and all supporting Feb. 10, 2025 evidence shall be filed on or before: -- Any Daubert Motions related to expert March 10, 2025 opinions on class certification issues shall be filed by: Responses shall be filed by: Apr. 10, 2025 Replies shall be filed by: May 9, 2025 XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil principally operating in North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=37mRGR at no extra charge.[CC] YZER LLC: Faces Mestanza Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yzer LLC, et al. The case is captioned as JULIO FUENTES MESTANZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YZER LLC, et al., Case No. 24NWCV03447 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., October 1, 2024). The Plaintiff brings this complaint against the Defendant for alleged violation of California Labor Code. A case management conference is set for April 10, 2025, before Judge Olivia Rosales. Yzer LLC is a freight shipping/trucking company doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net ZENLEADS INC: Uses Consumers' Info Without Consent, Masry Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- OMAR MASRY, VARUN YADAV, EDWARD BRISCOE, JAMES HOLLAND, DON SILAS, and MATTHEW BOLLINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZENLEADS, INC. d/b/a Apollo.io, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-07924-SK (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Plaintiffs' right of publicity under California Civil Code, Nevada Right of Publicity Statute, Indiana Publicity Code, and the Alabama Right of Publicity Act. The case arises from the Defendant's use of the Plaintiffs' and similarly situated individuals' names and other personal identifying information for commercial purposes without consent. Despite failing to obtain consent from the Plaintiffs and the Classes, Apollo nevertheless utilized their personal identifying information for the purpose of enticing users of its platform to enter into paid subscriptions for additional access to profiles contained in the platform. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Zenleads, Inc., doing business as Apollo.io, is a software company, with its headquarters located in Covina, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Chandler Visher, Esq. 268 Bush St., #4500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 901-0500 Email: chandler@visherlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com ZIDIAN MANUFACTURING: Mislabels Bronx Pasta Sauces, Sarrubbo Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NANCY SARRUBBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZIDIAN MANUFACTURING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06863-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y., September 27, 2024) is a proposed class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of New York consumers of the Defendant's Little Italy in the Bronx pasta sauce products due to alleged misrepresentations on the front of the packaging that the products are from Bronx, New York. The Defendant's marketing, labeling, and sale of the products mislead reasonable consumers to believe that the pasta sauces are produced in the Bronx, by using the following phrases on the label, "Little Italy in the Bronx," "New York's Authentic Little Italy, For Over 100 Years," and "Arthur Avenue," as well as imagery of Arthur Avenue in the Bronx. Consumers interpret the Bronx Representations to mean that the products are produced in the Bronx. Unfortunately for consumers, the Bronx Representations are false and misleading because the products are produced in Ohio, says the suit. The Defendant's misrepresentations about the products were uniform and were communicated to Plaintiff, and every other member of the Class, at every point of purchase and consumption throughout the Class Period, the suit alleges. Zidian Manufacturing, Inc. manufactures labels, distributes, and sells pasta sauce products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Charles D. Moore, Esq. REESE LLP 121 N. Washington Ave, 4th Floor Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: cmoore@reesellp.com - and - Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 353-7966 E-mail: ben@bentravislaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***