/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241121.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 20, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 233
Headlines
3C INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dreyer Alleges
ACCESS SPORTS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Barr Suit Says
AETHER LLC: Faces Riley Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
AMERICA PAC: Harvick Balks at False Statements on PAC Petition
AMROCK LLC: Faces Mangle Class Suit Over Inflated Notary Fees
ANGELS OF CARE: Seals Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Scott Suit
ARCADIUM LITHIUM: Continues to Defend PRGERS Class Suit
ARCHER AVIATION: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL REIT: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Merger Deal
ATHENS, TN: Denied Defense Coverage Claim, Commissioner Pelley Says
BAREFOOT CREATIONS: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Amaro Due Sept. 12, 2025
BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Harris
BOXART INC: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Balzekas Says
BOXCAR INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Suit Says
BOYLAND AUTO: Bid for More Time to File Appeal Notice Denied
BRIGHT SOLAR: Doughty Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
BYTEDANCE INC: Connell & Wengert Sue Over Worker Misclassification
CABA DESIGN: Carlton Balks at Deceptive Advertising Practices
CALIFORNIA RT: Faces Henderson Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
CARING PEOPLE: Fails to Timely Pay Childcare Providers, Suit Says
CARLA HAYDEN: Court Dismisses Mills Class Suit
CASCADE CAPITAL: Mitchell Alleges Unauthorized Pesonal Info Access
CASTLEROCK FARMING: Moreno Can File Second Amended Complaint
COEUR MINING: Phillips Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mining Employees
COSNOVA INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DAHRI & QAZI: Hashimi Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
DARREN GALLOWAY: Must File Responsive Pleading in Jones Suit
DISNEY DTC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend NFTs Class Suit in Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Scanlon Class Suit in Mass.
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Stein Class Suit in Florida
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit in KS
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Overdraft Fees Suit in Missouri
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Buchan Sues Over Share Price Drop
EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Wilhite Securities Class Suit
FHIA LLC: Parties in Kennedy Suit Seek More Time to File Class Cert
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Besser Overdraft Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Sues Over Deceptive CD Rollover Practices
FLORAL PARK, NY: Holubnyczyj-Ortiz Sues Over ADA Noncompliance
FLORIDA HOME-IMPROVEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
FX PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Serrano Class Suit Alleges
GEICO: Court Narrows Claims in Alvarez Amended Complaint
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Old Baltimore Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
GOTHAM DISTRIBUTING: Discloses Video Info to Meta, Mull Suit Says
GREEN DIAMOND: Class Certification in Gregorio Due June 9, 2025
HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Toussaint Wins Initial Nod
HAWES & CURTIS: Battle Sues Over ADA Non-compliant Website
HERSHEY CO: Nettle Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Chocolate Products
HOLCIM US: Scheduling Conference in Erickson Suit Set for Dec. 19
HSBC BANK: Fact Discovery in Ni Suit Due Dec. 31
HUMANA INC: Elliot Suit Seeks to Certify Prerecorded Call Class
JAMES HUMPHREY: Court Reopens Humphrey Suit
JAMES LEBLANC: Court Reopens Giroir Class Suit
JOHNSON, TN: Bid to Lodge Docs Under Seal Tossed as Moot
JOHNSON, TN: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot
L.L. BEAN: Faces Cook Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert
LAVOI CORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Johnson Alleges
LEGENDS OWO: Settlement Deal in Puller Gets Initial Nod
LIVEPERSON INC: Continues to Defend Damri Stockholder Class Suit
LONG BEACH, NY: Denial of Guma Bid to Amend Complaint Endorsed
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Says
MISS KITTY'S: Jones Bid for Sanctions Denied without Prejudice
MOBIS ALABAMA: Filing of Class Cert Response Extended to Dec. 3
MONICA VINADER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Riley Suit Says
MOOG INC: Failed to Pay Premium Wages, Khan Suit Alleges
MORTON WILLIAMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Claims
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Sherley Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 24, 2025
NEWARK GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
NOVA LINES: Faces Chekobi Class Action Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
NRP FOOD: Correa Wins Bid for Conditional Collective Status
NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 7th Cir.
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Mitchell Alleges
OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Duties-Related Class Suit
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Court Stays Discovery in Baker Suit
PREMERA BLUE: Partial Summary Judgment Bid Renoted to Dec. 13
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Cook Balks at Illegal Use of Personal Info
RED WING: Harrell Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA
RHINEBECK BANCORP: Herrera Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
ROYAL LOUNGE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Rafhat Suit Alleges
RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Court Recommends Bogan Class Cert Bid Denial
SIG SAUER: Glasscock Suit Seeks Class Certification
SIMILASAN CORP: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
SIMILASAN CORP: Plowden Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
SIMPLY GOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
SIRIUS XM: Opposition Brief to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2025
SPACE COAST: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Evidence Response
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Class Settlement in Dinsmore Gets Initial Nod
STALLION EXPRESS: McCatty Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
STERIS CORP: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Oh Seeks OK of Corrected Notice
SUPERB CABLE: Foreman Sues Over Worker Misclassification
TONY CHACHERE’S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
TTEC HOLDINGS: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Parker Claims
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Jan. 17, 2025
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Decertifies "Do Not Call" Class in Samson
US EXP TRUCKING: Akkoyun Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers
US PREMIUM BEEF: NBP Continues to Defend Brown Class Suit
UVERAL MEAT: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
VEROGEN INC: Curley Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
VEXUS FIBER: Faces Lacrue Class Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
WASATCH VALLEY: Under-reimburses Drivers, Brown Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: Adimora-Nweke et al. Sue Over Line of Credit Denial
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Pressley Class Suit
ZENLEAD INC: Violates Right of Publicity, Masry Suit Alleges
*********
3C INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Dreyer Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE DREYER, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3C INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00259 (S.D. Tex., November 11, 2024) seeks to recover
overtime wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Dreyer worked for Defendant 3C Industrial, LLC from
approximately July 2023 until June 2024 as a service coordinator.
Allegedly, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and the putative
collective members time and a half for all hours worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek. Among other things, the Defendant policy
requiring the Plaintiff and the putative collective members to
handle after hours calls off-the-clock, says the suit.
Headquartered in Corpus Christi, TX, 3CI provides industrial
compressed air solutions to its customers in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
ACCESS SPORTS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Barr Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH BARR, individually and on behalf of her minor child, E.B. and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ACCESS
SPORTS MEDICINE AND ORTHOPAEDICS, PLLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00358 (D.N.H., November 1, 2024) is a class action arising
out of the data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain
personally identifiable information(PII) and protected health
information(PHI) of Plaintiff and other current and former
employees and/or patients of Defendant, the putative class
members.
The private information compromised in the May 10, 2024 data breach
included certain personal or protected health information of
Defendant ASMO's patients, including Plaintiff and her minor child.
The data breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement
adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols
necessary to protect individuals' private information with which
they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both,
says the suit.
Accordingly, Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its
unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii)
negligence per se, (iii) breach of implied contract, (iv) breach of
fiduciary duty; and (v) unjust enrichment.
Access Sports Medicine and Orthopaedics, PLLC, is a New
Hampshire-based professional limited liability company that
provides orthopedic and rehabilitation services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher C. Snook, Esq.
SEUFERT LAW OFFICES, PA
59 Central Street
Franklin, NH 03235
Telephone: (603) 934-9837
Facsimile: (603) 934-9838
E-mail: CSnook@seufertlaw.com
- and -
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
AETHER LLC: Faces Riley Suit Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AETHER, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08593 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
www.aetherapparel.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccurate
drop-down menus, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the
denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the
requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Aether, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
AMERICA PAC: Harvick Balks at False Statements on PAC Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOY HARVICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELON MUSK & AMERICA PAC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01373 (W.D. Tex., November 11, 2024) asserts claims for
fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and for injunctive
relief.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged false statements with the
intention of inducing individuals to sign the America PAC petition
that was launched on or about October 7, 2024. Additionally, at an
October 19, 2024 rally, on Elon Musk's X platform, and on America
PAC's website, the Defendants announced that if a registered voter
turned over their personal identifying information and made a
political pledge by signing a petition pledging support for "the
Constitution, especially freedom of speech and the right to bear
arms," they would be eligible to be selected "randomly" to win $1
million. However, on November 4, 2024, Musk's attorney told a judge
in Philadelphia that "so-called 'winners' of his $1 million-a-day
sweepstakes in swing states are not chosen by chance. Instead, they
are chosen based on their personal stories and sign a contract with
America PAC, says the suit.
Headquartered in Austin, Travis County, Texas, America PAC is a
political action committee founded by Elon Musk. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle W. Farrar, Esq.
Mark D. Bankston, Esq.
WIlliam R. Ogden, Esq.
FARRAR & BALL, LLP
1117 Herkimer
Houston, TX 77008
Telephone: (713) 221-8300
AMROCK LLC: Faces Mangle Class Suit Over Inflated Notary Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALLISON MANGLE, AMY BRYAN, CRAIG BRYAN, TAMI HOLZEL, AMANDA
HUTCHINSON, and DANIEL HUTCHINSON, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. AMROCK LLC and KYLIE QUETELL, Case No.
2:24-cv-06025 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant
Amrock LLC has a practice of charging and collecting notary fees
that exceed the fees a notary public may charge under applicable
State law.
On Sept. 11, 2022, Mangle obtained a home equity loan secured by
residential real estate in Pennsylvania at 3101 Vermont Street,
Easton, Pennsylvania 18145. As part of the closing on the
residential real estate loan, she was given a Closing Disclosure
that itemized the closing costs associated with the real estate
mortgage. The Loan Costs in the Closing Disclosure at line 10 in
section B designated Services Borrower Did Not Shop For shows that
Amrock charged Mangle $125 as a notary fee and Mangle paid the fee,
the suit says.
Amrock established a company policy of overcharging, collecting,
and receiving fees for notary public services in excess of the fees
fixed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Mangle's mortgage lender required her to use, and Mangle had no
choice but to use the services of a notary public in connection
with the settlement of her residential mortgage loan.
Because a notary public is statutorily barred from charging more
than $5.00 for notarizing a signature, Amrock and its notary public
violated the statute by overcharging Mangle, at a minimum, $115,
the Bryans, at a minimum, by $105, Holzel, at a minimum, $115, and
the Hutchinsons, at a minimum, by $105, the suit contends.
By charging a fee for notarial acts higher than the statutory
maximum, Amrock failed to discharge its notarial functions with
diligence and has violated 57 Pa.C.S.A. 329.1 and 4 Pa. Code 161.1.
Amrock therefore is liable for damages to all members of the Class
to whom the company charged excessive fees.
Amrock was unjustly enriched by collecting more money for its
services and services of notaries public it employed than was
statutorily entitled. Amrock's unjust collection of excessive fees
should be returned to Plaintiffs and the Class members.
Amrock is an American provider of title insurance, property
valuations and settlement services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Facsimile: (412)281-4229
E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
JONATHAN F. ANDRES P.C.
1127 Hoot Owl Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63005
Telephone: (636) 633-1208
E-mail: andres@andreslawpc.com
ANGELS OF CARE: Seals Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEREK SEALS, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees,
Plaintiff v. ANGELS OF CARE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-05890
(E.D. Pa., November 1, 2024) seeks all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act for
Defendant's failure to pay overtime wages.
The complaint alleges that Defendant has acted willfully and with
reckless disregard of clearly applicable laws in paying Plaintiff
and other collective members regular hourly pay rates for hours
worked over 40 per week.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an hourly employee during the
three-year period relevant to this lawsuit.
Angels of Care LLC owns and operates a business that provides,
inter alia, home health and companionship services to clients
located in and around Southeastern Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
Michelle Tolodziecki, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
mtolodziecki@winebrakelaw.com
APPLE INC: Court Narrows Claims in Scott Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY SCOTT, individually
and on behalf of the General Public of the District of Columbia, v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-00475-RDM (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Randolph Moss entered an order granting in part and denying in part
the Defendant's motion to dismiss:
-- The motion is granted as to Plaintiff's claims for injunctive
relief and as to Plaintiff's affirmative misrepresentation
claims
based on Apple's advertising and marketing materials.
-- The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's affirmative
misrepresentation claim based on Apple's representation that
the
damage to his laptop was caused by accidental damage, as to his
misleading omission claims, as to his unfair trade practices
claims, and as to his express and implied warranty claims.
The Court, accordingly, concludes that Plaintiff has alleged facts
sufficient to support his standing to seek compensatory relief for
past wrongs but has failed to plead facts sufficient to support his
standing to sue for injunctive relief to guard against future
wrongs.
Apple is correct that Plaintiff also “reserves the right to seek
injunctive relief for the general public without resort to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Procedure.” But because the Court has
already concluded that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts
sufficient to assert Article III standing for purposes of seeking
injunctive relief, the Court need not reach the question whether
the CPPA forecloses him from suing for injunctive relief on behalf
of the general public. For now, at least, that claim cannot
proceed.
The Court will, accordingly, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for
injunctive relief for lack of Article III standing, and will
dismiss his claims for damages brought on behalf of the general
public (to the extent those claims differ from his claims for
class-wide relief) for lack of statutory standing. In all other
respects, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has
adequately alleged Article III and statutory standing.
Plaintiff Ricky Scott brings this putative class action against
Defendant Apple Inc., alleging that Apple violated the D.C. Unfair
and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, D.C. Code § 28- 3905, in
marketing certain allegedly defective laptop computers and by
allegedly breaching an express or implied warranty.
Considered as a whole, Plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleges
that the defect was likely to cause substantial injury, that
consumers could not reasonably avoid that injury, and that the no
“countervailing benefits” outweigh that injury. The fact that
the complaint does not precisely track the Federal Trade
Commission’s guidance is of no moment
Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated Nov. 6,
2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m7fZZ0 at no extra charge.[CC]
ARCADIUM LITHIUM: Continues to Defend PRGERS Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Arcadium Lithium PLC 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 City of Pontiac
Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System (PRGERS)
securities class suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania.
On September 6, 2024, a separate securities class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania (City of Pontiac Reestablished
General Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated vs. Arcadium Lithium plc et. al).
The lawsuit is alleging securities law claims arising from the
Allkem Livent Merger and is seeking unspecified monetary damages.
A range of possible liabilities, if any, cannot be currently
estimated by the Company.
Arcadium Lithium PLC operates as a chemical company. The Company
engages in the production of lithium chemicals for portable
electronics, electric cars, and stationary storage facilities.
Arcadium Lithium serves customers worldwide. [BN]
ARCHER AVIATION: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Archer Aviation 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 a consolidated stockholder
class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On May 17, 2024, two putative stockholders of the Company (and
formerly, Atlas Crest Investment Corp. ("Atlas")) filed class
action lawsuits, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against the directors and officers of Atlas, the Company, the
Company's co-founders, Moelis & Company Group LP and Moelis &
Company LLC.
The complaint asserts claims against the defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties,
and unjust enrichment, in connection with the merger between Atlas
and the Company. The plaintiffs request damages in an amount to be
determined at trial, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees.
Relatedly, on June 19, 2024, another putative stockholder of the
Company filed a class action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and
other similarly-situated stockholders, in the Delaware Court of
Chancery asserting similar claims as the aforementioned May 17,
2024 complaint against the same defendants named in that May
complaint.
The Court subsequently consolidated the related class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff. The Company along with the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 3, 2024.
The plaintiffs' response is expected to be filed by the end of the
year and the hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss will likely
occur in mid-2025.
Archer Aviation is a publicly traded company headquartered in San
Jose, California, which is developing eVTOL aircraft.[BN]
ARMOUR RESIDENTIAL REIT: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2024, that nine
putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with the
tender offer and merger for Javelin Mortgage Investment Corp.
(JMI). All nine suits name Armour, the previous members of
Javelin's board of directors prior to the merger (of which eight
are current members of Armour's board of directors) and JMI
Acquisition Corporation as defendants. On February 14, 2024, the
court issued an order granting defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and
dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, and without
leave to amend. On March 11, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal of the Court's order of dismissal. On July 3, 2024,
plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of the previously
filed appeal.
The lawsuits were brought by purported holders of Javelin's common
stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of its
stockholders, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, including claims that they failed to properly value
Javelin, failed to take steps to maximize its value to its
stockholders, ignored or failed to protect against conflicts of
interest, failed to disclose material information about the
transactions, took steps to avoid competitive bidding and to give
Armour an unfair advantage by failing to adequately solicit other
potential acquirers or alternative transactions and erected
unreasonable barriers to other third-party bidders.
The suits also allege that Armour, Javelin and Acquisition aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
defendants. The lawsuits seek equitable relief, including, among
other relief, to enjoin consummation of the transactions, or
rescind or unwind the transactions if already consummated, and
award costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses.
The sole Florida lawsuit was never served on the defendants, and
that case was voluntarily dismissed and closed on January 20, 2017.
On April 25, 2016, the Maryland court issued an order consolidating
the eight Maryland cases into one action, captioned "In re JAVELIN
Mortgage Investment Corp. Shareholder Litigation" (Case No.
24-C-16-001542), and designated counsel for one of the Maryland
cases as interim lead co-counsel. On May 26, 2016, interim lead
counsel filed the Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint for
Breach of Fiduciary Duty asserting consolidated claims of breach of
fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty,
and waste.
In June 27, 2016, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Class Action complaint for failing to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. A hearing was held on the
Motion to Dismiss on March 3, 2017, and the court reserved a
ruling.
In October 25, 2022, the court deferred the Order of Dismissal
until May 1, 2023, and if the case is not fully disposed of by that
date, the clerk shall enter on the docket "dismissed for lack of
prosecution without prejudice."
Armour Residential REIT, Inc. is an investment advisor based in
Maryland.
ATHENS, TN: Denied Defense Coverage Claim, Commissioner Pelley Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Adolphus Pelley, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. City of Athens, Tennessee,
Public Entity Partners, Randy Brundige, Victor Lay, John Holden,
Brian Stover, Lois Preece, Todd Smith, Samuel (Sam) Tharpe, Paige
Brown, DaVena Hardison, Mayor Steven S. Sherlin, and McMinn County,
Tennessee, Tennessee Comptroller, Jason Mumpower, Defendants, as
well as all other Municipalities of Tennessee, as well as attorneys
that utilize Public Entity Partners for their Municipal Insurance
and or legal defense, which are not yet ascertained and which
discovery will disclose, Case No. 3:24-cv-01306 (M.D. Tenn.,
October 31, 2024) is a class action complaint for damages,
declaratory relief and emergency injunctive relief.
Plaintiff, Dr. Adolphus Pelley, is a City Commissioner for Athens,
Tennessee, which is located in the County Seat of McMinn County. He
has been elected each term he has served, approximately 20 years,
garnering the lion's share of the votes from the City of Athens
electorate.
Dr. Pelley has been sued by Chris Caldwell, a private attorney in
private practice and also, the attorney serving as the prosecutor
for the City of Athens. Upon information and belief, Mr. Caldwell
was directly involved in denying Dr. Pelley's claim for defense
coverage on the ouster action he is the lawyer on, citing to remove
Dr. Pelley from elected office.
According to the complaint, Public Entity Partners is not an
insurance company. Rather, Public Entity Partners is an unlawful
municipal for profit municipal insurance that pays no claims and
attacks lawyers for attorney's fees and the like when the law does
not support the same. Public Entity Partners' sole purpose is to
protect municipal governments and their elected officials, as well
as the citizens of the municipality insured from claims. For
purposes of this Complaint, Public Entity Partners owes a defense
to Dr. Pelley in the underlying ouster action in McMinn County,
Tennessee and is unlawfully denying the same. Indeed, as a City
Commissioner, Dr. Pelley relied on the retention of Public Entity
Partners, as the municipal carrier for the City of Athens, that he
would be provided a defense on actions such as the underlying event
trying to oust him from a duly elected position by a private
attorney not the County District Attorney or the City Attorney.
Despite Dr. Pelley being defined as a covered party under the
Public Entity Partners policy, the carrier denied the claim he made
for defense coverage, which they had covered in the past for
elected officials. This resulted in Dr. Pelley, who is a doctor for
psychology, not a lawyer, to defend himself pro se against the
ouster lawsuit until a lawyer of this suit was hired recently. Dr.
Pelley paid a $5,000 retainer fee out of his own personal funds,
which he could hardly afford given the abuse he has sustained by
the City of Athens, a state actor, says the suit.
City of Athens is a municipality located within McMinn County,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Russ Egli, Esq.
THE EGLI LAW FIRM
11109 Lake Rideg Drive, Fl 3
Knoxville, TN 37934
Telephone: (865) 274-8872
E-mail: theeglilawfirm@gmail.com
BAREFOOT CREATIONS: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BAREFOOT CREATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08347 (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.softstarshoes.com,
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff says 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, the
Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the
website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the
moccasins (Adult Roo Moccasin), that Plaintiff wished to acquire
from the website, says the suit.
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.
Barefoot Creations, LLC is a company that owns and operates the
website offering footwear products.[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
BEE SWEET: Class Cert Bid Filing in Amaro Due Sept. 12, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Amaro, et al., v. Bee
Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382 (E.D. Cal., Filed March
11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order
setting a deadline of Sept. 12, 2025, for filing a motion for class
certification noticed before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.
The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts.
Bee Sweet Citrus was founded in 1987 as an independent packer and
shipper of California oranges.[CC]
BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harris v. City of
Bloomington et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01417-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:
-- Rule 16 scheduling conference
The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.
-- Discovery plan
The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.
-- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference
If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16
scheduling conference be cancelled.
-- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing
For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a
telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to
appear for an in-person hearing.
-- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the
discovery deadline has already passed
The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court
after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the
relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move
that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any
subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.
-- Settlement conferences and mediation
The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or
mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.
Bloomington is a city in central Illinois. Downtown, the McLean
County Museum of History traces Abraham Lincoln's time as an
attorney in the area, and has a re-created pioneer log cabin.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LjGnOZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOXART INC: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Balzekas Says
----------------------------------------------------
STANLEY VISARIS BALZEKAS IV, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENNIS FISHER, KYLE QUINN, and
BOXART INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07662 (E.D.N.Y., November
1, 2024) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based
upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiff's
rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as manual workers. Throughout
the statutory period, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs
on a weekly basis as required under the state law. The Defendants
terminated Plaintiff on September 10, 2024, less than a month after
he complained of Defendants' failure to pay female employees the
same as men, says the complaint.
Boxart Inc. is a company that builds shipping crates for art
collections and its owners/managers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amit Kumar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 583-7400
E-mail: AKumar@CafaroEsq.com
BOXCAR INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BOXCAR INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08584
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 12, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.boxcar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 11, 2024, in an attempt to schedule a Knife Sharpening Service
from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Boxcar offers local services, including knife sharpening
services.[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
BOYLAND AUTO: Bid for More Time to File Appeal Notice Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG,
v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, KUNES BUICK GMC,
AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS LLC, NATIONAL BUSINESS BROKERS, DORIAN BOYLAND,
and KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00765-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order denying Plaintiff
William Louis Armstrong's motion for reconsideration, for an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and for provisional
certification.
The Court cannot grant this requested extension because the Court's
September 2024 order is not a final order such that it can be
appealed as of right at this juncture.
Nor is the Court's September 2024 order the sort of order that the
Court would authorize for interlocutory appeal.
In September 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff an extension of
time within which to either "(1) obtain counsel and have counsel
enter a notice of appearance in this matter on behalf of the
putative class, or (2) file an amended complaint setting forth
Plaintiff’s claims solely on behalf of himself rather than on
behalf of a putative class."
Boyland Auto was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6NkPDZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIGHT SOLAR: Doughty Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS DOUGHTY, individually and on behalf of the classes v. BRIGHT
SOLAR MARKETING, LLC and FREEDOM FOREVER LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01190-DII (W.D. Tex., Oct. 4, 2024) is an action arising
out of Defendants' practice of making telemarketing calls to
individuals who were placed on, or should have been placed on,
Defendants' internal Do-Not-Call lists (i.e.,: individuals who
requested to not be contacted), in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and provisions of the Texas Business &
Commerce Code.
On April 11, 2023, a call from Bright Solar was placed to the
Plaintiff's telephone number ending in 7778. The Defendants make
calls to consumers after they request the Defendants to stop
calling them and to place their number on Defendants' Internal Do
Not Call lists, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff requested that Bright Solar stop calling him and
place him on its do not call list multiple times. Despite these
requests, Bright Solar continued to place calls to the Plaintiff's
phone, placing at least 138 calls to the Plaintiff since its
initial call on April 11, 2023, and approximately 100 calls after
speaking directly with Bright Solar's live representative "Rachel"
on May 1, 2023 and requesting that Bright Solar STOP, claims the
lawsuit.
The Defendants' practices of willfully disregarding consumers'
requests to be placed on the Defendants' Internal DNC lists
demonstrates an intentional and willful violation of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff and Class Members lost time away from work, family,
and personal activities, and suffered aggravation, because of the
Defendants' unsolicited telemarketing, the suit asserts.
Bright Solar Marketing is a leading solar panel installation
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Telephone: (817) 416-5060
Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties request an extension of time on deadlines related to class
certification briefing as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadlines Deadlines
Close of Fact Discovery on Dec. 4, 2024 Jan. 10, 2025
Issues Related to Class
Certification:
Motion for Class Certification: Dec. 18, 2024 Jan. 24, 2025
Opposition to Class Feb. 12, 2025 March 14,
2025
Certification Motion:
Reply to Class Certification March 5, 2025 April 4, 2025
Motion:
The Parties have resolved multiple discovery disputes and are
continuing to meet and confer on outstanding issues, with the goal
of reaching agreement on as many, if not all, disputed discovery
issues as possible without the need to burden the Court.
Written discovery, communication on outstanding issues, and
document productions are ongoing.
Brooklyn Bedding is an American made manufacturer of mattresses.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mhEuaH at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
Harrison Brown, Esq.
Erica R. Graves, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 885-5001
BYTEDANCE INC: Connell & Wengert Sue Over Worker Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Selena Connell, Jeffrey "Beau" Wengert, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ByteDance, Inc.
d/b/a/ TikTok, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-07859 (N.D. Cal.,
November 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating multiple
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Connell was employed by Defendant as inside sales
representatives from approximately November 2021 until September
2024 and Plaintiff Wengert was employed by Defendant from
approximately September 2021 until November 2023. Allegedly, the
Defendant misclassified them and other inside salespersons as
exempt from overtime pay, and did not compensate them for their
overtime hours worked, say the Plaintiffs.
Headquartered in San Jose, CA, ByteDance, Inc. owns the social
media platform TikTok and sells ad-space. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
- and -
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
Andrew Eckhous, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
2901 Bee Cave Rd, Suite G
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 814-8522
CABA DESIGN: Carlton Balks at Deceptive Advertising Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
LISA CARLTON and LORIEN TERWILLIGER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CABA DESIGN CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-at-01396 (E.D. Cal., November 1, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's deceptive advertising practices in
violation of California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition
Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has a toolbox of
deceptive advertising tactics that it uses to mislead consumers and
increase profits. The Defendant advertised and offered its products
with specific original prices and market values and with discounts
of specific dollar values and percentages, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered economic injury because:
(i) if not for Defendant's deceptive advertising (e.g., false low
stock messages, baseless countdown timers, false limited time
messages, and false discount claims), Plaintiffs and Class Members
would not have purchased Defendant's products; (ii) Plaintiffs and
Class Members overpaid for their products because Defendant
inflated its prices by an amount directly attributable to its
deceptive advertising; (iii) Plaintiffs and Class Members did not
receive the advertised discounts (as a percentage value or as a
dollar amount); and/or (iv) Plaintiffs and Class Members did not
receive products worth the advertised original and/or market value,
the suit alleges.
Caba Design Corp. designs, manufactures, distributes, advertises,
and sells home furniture and accessories to consumers in the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: agunem@straussborrelli.com
CALIFORNIA RT: Faces Henderson Class Action Lawsuit in Cal. Super.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CALIFORNIA RT PIZZA
GROUP, INC. The case is captioned as Danyell Henderson, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. CALIFORNIA RT PIZZA
GROUP, INC., Case No. CV0004153 (Cal. Super., Oct. 4, 2024).
California RT is a pizza restaurant located in Danville, CA,
offering a variety of pizza options to its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff Danyell Henderson, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd # 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (866) 470-2189
CARING PEOPLE: Fails to Timely Pay Childcare Providers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CCPU-PA, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and HASSAN DOCKERY, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARING
PEOPLE ALLIANCE, Defendant, Case No. 241100340 (Pa. Com. Pl.,
Philadelphia Cty., November 1, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
against the Defendant, seeking all available relief pursuant to
their claim for breach of contract.
CCPU-PA members and Named Plaintiff are Philadelphia childcare
providers who participate in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Office of Child Development & Early Learning subsidized childcare
program. To participate in the program, individuals, including
CCPU-PA members and Named Plaintiff, must each sign an identical
"Certified Provider Agreement" with the Defendant which operates
OCDEL's Early Learning Center in the City of Philadelphia. The
Agreement provides that the ELRC, operated by Defendant CPA, will
provide payments to childcare providers, including Plaintiffs, for
services provided to subsidy-eligible children.
The Defendant has violated its contractual obligations to
Plaintiffs by failing to timely pay them pursuant to the Certified
Provider Agreements, says the suit.
Caring People Alliance is a non-profit organization that offers
child and senior care services with its principal place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Amy L. Rosenberger, Esq.
Lauren M. Hoye, Esq.
Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 656-3600
E-mail: arosenberger@wwdlaw.com
lhoye@wwdlaw.com
rhancock@wwdlaw.com
CARLA HAYDEN: Court Dismisses Mills Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MILLS, et al.,
v. CARLA HAYDEN, in her official capacity as the Librarian of
Congress, Case No. 1:04-cv-02205-RBW (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge
Reggie Walton entered an order granting the Defendant's opposition
to plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's
motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary judgment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BkhcZi at no extra
charge.[CC]
CASCADE CAPITAL: Mitchell Alleges Unauthorized Pesonal Info Access
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CASCADE CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-06075-NIQA (E.D. Pa., November 13, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence
per se and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach between February 14 and February
26, 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.
Cascade Capital Funding, LLC is a debt purchasing and collection
agency with its principal place of business located in Petaluma,
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Email: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
CASTLEROCK FARMING: Moreno Can File Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA G. MORENO, et al.,
v. CASTLEROCK FARMING AND TRANSPORT INC., et al. Case No.
1:12-cv-00556-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint
is granted;
2. Within five days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall
file a
second amended complaint electronically as a standalone
docket
entry in this case;
3. Upon its filing, the second amended complaint shall become
the
operative complaint in this action;
4. Defendants shall have 45 days to file their responses to the
second amended complaint following service thereof; and
5. Within 14 days from the date of this order, the parties shall
meet and confer and provide a status report addressing (1)
the
scheduling of depositions of the newly added plaintiffs, and
(2)
whether Defendants' pending motion for summary judgment is
moot
and should be withdrawn or terminated.
On Nov. 9, 2005, a wage-and-hour putative class action was
initiated against Defendant Castlerock and several other table
grape growers.
On March 31, 2009, the Court broke that case up into individual
actions against the various growers.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rywvCk at no extra
charge.[CC]
COEUR MINING: Phillips Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Mining Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COEUR MINING, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11672 (N.D. Ill., November 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and
Hour Act.
Mr. Phillips was employed by Coeur as a pump hand from
approximately February 2014 to May 2024.
Coeur Mining, Inc. is a mining company, with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS PC
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
Email: 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
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
COSNOVA INC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COSNOVA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08554 (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://essencemakeup.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been
and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous
goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the
website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Cosnova Inc. operates the Essence
Makeup online interactive website and retail store across the
United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
DAHRI & QAZI: Hashimi Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
SYED HASHMI, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DAHRI & QAZI ENTERPRISES INC. and
MAHMUD DAHRI, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-04417 (S.D. Tex.,
November 11, 2024) arises out of Defendants' alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a cashier at a Defendants'
Shell branded gas station from approximately February of 2023 to
September of 2023. The Plaintiff typically worked six to seven days
a week and 10 to 12 hours each work day. However, the Defendants
did not pay him any additional compensation. Instead, Defendants
paid him the same hourly rate for his regular and overtime hours,
says the suit.
Dahri & Qazi Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates a chain of gas
stations in Houston area. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
- and -
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (281) 885-8630
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
DARREN GALLOWAY: Must File Responsive Pleading in Jones Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MANDELA JONES, v. DARREN
GALLOWAY, JON LOFTUS, and LATOYA HUGHES, Case No. 3:24-cv-01405-SPM
(S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen McGlynn entered an order
directing the Defendant to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the Complaint and shall not waive filing a reply
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1997e(g).
Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 244, Defendant need only to
respond to the issues stated in this Merit Review Order.
Finally, Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZyYafK
at no extra charge.[CC]
DISNEY DTC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. DISNEY DTC LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08587 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
12, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://disneystore.com/franchise/national-geographic/, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Sept. 13, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Nat Geo Kids Book
Bundle from the Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that
denied the 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, the suit
says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit asserts.
This discrimination is particularly acute during the current
COVID-19 global pandemic.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
The Defendant offers Disney Store Nat Geo, toys, clothing,
collectibles & accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, 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: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend NFTs Class Suit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
DraftKings 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 NFTs class suit in Massachusetts federal
court.
On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in
Massachusetts federal court by alleged purchasers of non-fungible
tokens ("NFTs") on the DraftKings Marketplace ("DK Marketplace").
The complaint asserts claims for violations of federal and state
securities laws against the Company and three of its officers on
the grounds that, among other things, the NFTs that are sold and
traded on the DK Marketplace allegedly constitute securities that
were not registered with the SEC in accordance with federal and
Massachusetts law, and that the DK Marketplace is a securities
exchange that is not registered in accordance with federal and
Massachusetts law.
Based on these allegations, plaintiff brings claims seeking
rescissory damages and other relief on behalf of himself and a
putative class of persons who purchased NFTs on the DK Marketplace
between August 11, 2021 and the present.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Scanlon Class Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
DraftKings 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 Scanlon class suit in Middlesex County
Superior Court of Massachusetts.
On December 8, 2023, plaintiffs Melissa Scanlon and Shane Harris,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in Middlesex
County Superior Court of Massachusetts.
On March 26, 2024, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court.
Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Company’s
promotion that offered new customers an opportunity to earn up to
1,000 in site credits, and related advertisements, were: (1) unfair
or deceptive practices in violation of Massachusetts General Laws
(“M.G.L.”) c. 93A, §§ 2, 9; and (2) untrue and misleading
advertising in violation of M.G.L. c. 266, § 91.
The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, injunctive relief,
actual damages, double or treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this case. Any adverse
outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial
damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business. The
Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this
matter.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
DRAFTKINGS INC: Continues to Defend Stein Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
DraftKings 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 Stein class suit in Florida state court.
Nelson Steiner filed suit against the Company and FanDuel Inc. in
Florida state court on November 9, 2015. The action was
subsequently transferred to In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation
(Multi-District Litigation) (the "MDL"), and Mr. Steiner's action
was consolidated into the MDL's amended complaint, which, in
February 2016, consolidated numerous actions (primarily purported
class actions) filed against the Company, FanDuel, and other
related parties in courts across the United States.
By June 23, 2022, the MDL was resolved, except for Mr. Steiner's
action, and the court officially closed the MDL docket on July 8,
2022.
Mr. Steiner brings this action as a concerned citizen of the state
of Florida alleging that, among other things, defendants' daily
fantasy sports contests are illegal gambling under the state laws
of Florida and seeks disgorgement of "gambling losses" purportedly
suffered by Florida citizens on behalf of the state.
On June 23, 2022, the MDL court remanded Mr. Steiner’s action to
the Circuit Court for Pinellas County, Florida.
Plaintiff has not yet filed an amended pleading.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit. Any adverse
outcome in this matter could be subject the Company to substantial
damages and it could be restricted from offering DFS contests in
Florida. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome
of this matter.
DraftKings Inc. operates as a daily fantasy sports contest and
sports betting company. The Company allows users to enter daily and
weekly fantasy sports-related contests and win money based on
individual player performances in American sports. [BN]
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending deadline to
file motion for class certification and briefing schedule.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to extend the deadline for Plaintiff
to submit a motion for class certification and reset the briefing
schedule accordingly. Currently, the motion for class certification
is due on November 13, 2024. Plaintiff has conferred with
Defendants, who have represented that they do not oppose this
request.
The parties have agreed to the following amended briefing schedule:
(1) The Plaintiff's motion for class certification to be filed
on
or before Dec. 17, 2024;
(2) Defendants' Opposition to be filed on or before Jan. 17,
2025;
(3) Plaintiff's reply due Jan. 31, 2025.
Enterprise is an American private holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oDQ3PP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees Suit in KS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares 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
Equity Bank continues to defend itself from the overdraft fees
class suit in Sedgwick County Kansas District Court.
Equity Bank is party to a lawsuit filed on January 28, 2022, in the
Sedgwick County Kansas District Court on behalf of one of its
customers alleging improperly collected overdraft fees.
The plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against the claim asserted.
Equity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in
Wichita, Kansas.
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Continues to Overdraft Fees Suit in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bancshares 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 overdraft fees class suit
in Saline County, Missouri District Court.
Equity Bank is a party to a lawsuit filed on February 28, 2023, in
Saline County, Missouri District Court against the Bank on behalf
of one of its Missouri customers alleging improperly collected
overdraft fees.
The plaintiff seeks to have the case certified as a class action
for Missouri customers only.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit, and it
intends to vigorously defend against the claims now asserted.
At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss
amount of this litigation.
Equity Bancshares, Inc. is a bank holding company headquartered in
Wichita, Kansas.
EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES: Buchan Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS BUCHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVOLV TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS, INC., PETER
GEORGE, and MARK DONOHUE, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12768 (D.
Mass., November 1, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or acquired
Evolv securities between August 19, 2022 and October 30, 2024,
inclusive, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against Evolv
Technologies, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer Peter
George, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer Mark Donohue.
This case concerns material misstatements in the Company's
financial statements prepared for the periods between the second
quarter of 2022 and the second quarter of 2024 relating to Evolv's
revenue recognition and other reported metrics that are a function
of revenue.
On October 25, 2024, Evolv announced that the Company's financial
statements issued between the second quarter of 2022 and the second
quarter of 2024 should not be relied upon due to material
misstatements impacting revenue recognition and other previously
reported metrics that are a function of revenue. The Company
revealed that "certain sales, including sales to one of its largest
channel partners, were subject to extra-contractual terms and
conditions" not shared with the Company's accounting personnel "and
that certain Company personnel engaged in misconduct in connection
with those transactions." The Company also announced that it
"expects to report one or more additional material weaknesses in
internal control over financial reporting," was delaying filing its
upcoming quarterly report for the third quarter of 2024, and that
it has "self-reported these issues" to the Division of Enforcement
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the suit contends.
On October 31, 2024, Evolv announced the termination of Defendant
George, "effective immediately." The Company announced that Michael
Ellenbogen, Evolv's Chief Innovation Officer will serve in an
interim role until a successor is appointed.
On this news, the price of Evolv stock declined roughly 8%, from
$2.34 per share on October 30, 2024, to $2.15 per share on October
31, 2024, on unusually high trading volume, alleges the suit.
Evolv is a security technology company that utilizes AI-based
screening. The Company's key market categories include education,
healthcare, sports, and live entertainment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
Telephone: (781) 431-2231
Facsimile: (781) 431-8726
E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com
- and -
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 789-1340
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com
- and -
Ross Shikowitz, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
75 Virginia Road
White Plains, NY 10603
Telephone: (914) 265-2991
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: rshikowitz@bfalaw.com
- and -
Adam C. McCall, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (212) 205-3960
E-mail: amccall@bfalaw.com
EXPENSIFY INC: Continues to Defend Wilhite Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expensify 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 Wilhite securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
On November 29, 2023, a putative securities class action (the
"Putative Class Action") was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon captioned Wilhite v. Expensify,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR, naming the Company, two of
its executive officers and two of its former directors as
defendants (collectively, the "Defendants").
The lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of all those who
purchase or acquired its stock pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering ("IPO").
The complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements in the offering documents filed in connection with its
IPO.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On January 29, 2024, three shareholders moved to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the Putative Class Action.
The court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on March 11,
2024.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the lead plaintiff's amended
complaint was filed May 10, 2024, naming six of our current board
members as additional defendants (together with the Defendants, the
"Amended Defendants").
Amended Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was
filed on July 9, 2024.
The lead plaintiff's opposition was filed September 6, 2024, and
the Amended Defendants' reply was filed October 18, 2024.
The court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the Amended
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Amended Defendants deny the allegations of wrongdoing and will
continue to vigorously defend against the claims in the Putative
Class Action.
Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management
system for personal and business use.
FHIA LLC: Parties in Kennedy Suit Seek More Time to File Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carol Kennedy,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FHIA,
LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00246-JSS-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to
file a motion for class certification until April 18, 2025.
Further, the Parties are discussing a possible settlement and would
like the opportunity to potentially resolve the action before
spending more time and resources on additional discovery and
depositions. The extension of the deadline for class certification
would allow the Parties time to gather information, properly
schedule depositions, and possibly resolve the matter before
incurring further costs.
Additionally, the current deadline for Discovery and Discovery
Related Motions is not until July 2025. In this case, it makes
sense to have the class certification deadline closer to the
discovery deadline, as it gives the Parties more time to engage in
formal discovery and further settlement discussions. This request
will not affect any other deadlines in the case. This motion is
made in good faith and not for the purposes of delay.
FHIA operates as a home remodeling company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V8IC3a at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jenniffer Cabrera, Esq.
TROUTMAN AMIN, LLP
1825 NW Corporate Blvd, Ste. 100
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Telephone: (561) 834-0883
E-mail: jenniffer@troutmanamin.com
FIRSTSUN CAPITAL: Besser Overdraft Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstSun Capital Bancorp 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 Besser
overdraft class suit discovery is ongoing in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
On September 13, 2021, Samantha Besser filed a putative class
action amended complaint against the Bank in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
The amended complaint alleges that the Bank improperly charged
multiple insufficient funds or overdraft fees. The Plaintiff seeks
unspecified restitution, actual and statutory damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and other relief as the
Court deems proper.
On September 27, 2021, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was denied on March 11, 2024.
The case is now in discovery. At this time, the Bank is unable to
reasonably estimate the outcome of this litigation.
FirstSun Capital Bancorp, headquartered in Denver, Colorado, is the
financial holding company for Sunflower Bank, National Association,
which operates as Sunflower Bank, First National 1870 and Guardian
Mortgage.
FLAGSTAR BANK: Solomon Sues Over Deceptive CD Rollover Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
TUNNY SOLOMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLAGSTAR BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-24482 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair and deceptive
practice of rolling funds from matured certificates of deposit into
extremely long-term CDs that generate interest at a rate far below
what customers contracted for, and far lower than what they could
have readily obtained in the open market. According to the
complaint, this practice allows the Defendant to earn interest and
gain other benefits on the funds deposited by customers, including
the Plaintiff and Class members, thereby generating increased
profits and other benefits for itself at the direct expense of its
customers, and contrary to the terms of the relevant account
agreements and applicable law.
Flagstar Bank, NA is a banking institution doing business in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
LEHRMAN LAW
6501 Park of Commerce Blvd., Suite 253
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Telephone: (754) 778-9660
Email: seth@lehrmanlaw.com
- and -
Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS P.A.
2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 589-0588
Email: scott@scottdowens.com
FLORAL PARK, NY: Holubnyczyj-Ortiz Sues Over ADA Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
NADIA HOLUBNYCZYJ-ORTIZ, individually, and on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF
FLORAL PARK, FLORAL PARK BUILDING DEPARTMENT, FLORAL PARK
RECREATION CENTER, FLORAL PARK VILLAGE BOARD, KEVIN M. FITZGERALD,
in his capacity as Mayor, and GERARD M. BAMBRICK, in his capacity
as the Floral Park Village Administrator, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-07828 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2024) asserts claims for
violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 296 of the New York
State Executive Law, and a common law negligence claim for
Plaintiff's personal injuries suffered as a direct result of such
violations.
The Defendants have failed to install adequate and compliant curb
ramps when newly constructing or altering sidewalks, streets,
roads, and/or highways, in violation of Title II of the ADA.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues on behalf of herself and all
Village residents with mobility disabilities who are being
discriminated against and subjected to hazardous conditions due to
the access barriers at public facilities, sidewalks and pedestrian
rights-of-way in the Village of Floral Park, and to put an end to
the Village's decades-long practice of ignoring Federal Law and
treating its disabled residents as second-class citizens.
Incorporated Village of Floral Park was, and still is, an
incorporated village within the Town of Hempstead, County of
Nassau, State of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Johston, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
116 Jackson Blvd.
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516)280-3008
E-mail: DJ@BellLG.com
FLORIDA HOME-IMPROVEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kennedy v. Florida
Home-Improvement Associates, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-00246 (M.D.
Fla., Filed Feb. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Julie S. Sneed entered an
order granting the parties' joint motion for extension.
-- The Plaintiff shall move for class certification on or before
April 18, 2025.
-- No other deadlines are extended.
The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
FHIA operates as a home remodeling company. The Company offers
windows and doors installation.[CC]
FX PRODUCTIONS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Serrano Class Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE SERRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FX PRODUCTIONS, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company; MINIM PRODUCTIONS, INC., a domestic corporation; and DOES
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV25818 (Cal. Super., Oct. 4,
2024) alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice
of not paying the Plaintiff and the Class for all hours worked,
including overtime wages in compliance with the California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.
Despite the Defendants' payment of the non-discretionary bonuses to
the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated hourly employees, the
Defendants failed to include the payment when calculating the
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons' regular rate of
pay, thereby causing them to be underpaid all of their required
overtime and double time wages. Instead, the Defendant paid the
Plaintiff one and one-half times his base rate, which was not equal
to one and one-half times the applicable regular rate, the suit
contends.
The Defendants also failed to pay the Plaintiff and other members
of the Class one hour of pay for violations of the meal and rest
period requirements, including in periods when the employee earned
non-discretionary bonuses required to be factored into an
employee's regular rate of compensation, the suit adds.
Further, the Defendants required the Plaintiff and the Class to
work "off-the-clock," uncompensated, by, for example, requiring the
Plaintiff and the Class to continue working during unpaid meal
periods and by requiring the Plaintiff and the Class to work before
clocking in and after clocking out for the workday.
Plaintiff Serrano worked for the Defendants in Los Angeles County,
California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee in November
2022.
FX Productions is an American television and in-house production
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank H. Kim, Esq.
KIM LEGAL, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (323) 482-3300
Facsimile: (866) 652-7819
E-mail: fkim@kim-legal.com
GEICO: Court Narrows Claims in Alvarez Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY ALVAREZ, et al., v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00722-GLR
(D. Md.), the Hon. Judge George L. Russell, III entered an order
granting in part and denying in part GEICO's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint:
-- GEICO's motion to dismiss amended complaint is granted to the
extent it seeks dismissal of Claims Two, Three, Four, and Five
of
the Amended Complaint.
-- GEICO's motion to dismiss amended complaint is otherwise
denied.
-- GEICO shall answer the remaining claims of the Amended
Complaint
as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local
Rules of this Court.
-- The Court denies GEICO's motion to strike declaration
testimony.
-- The Court also denies Plaintiffs' motion to seal and GEICO's
motion to seal.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient preliminary
showing that employees in the putative collective are similarly
situated. As discussed, Plaintiffs’ burden at this stage is a
lenient one,
GIECO is an American auto insurance company.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RMae84
at no extra charge.[CC]
GOODRX HOLDINGS: Old Baltimore Sues Over Price-Fixing Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
OLD BALTIMORE PIKE APOTHECARY, INC., T/A SOUTHERN CHESTER COUNTY
PHARMACY; and SMITH'S PHARMACY II, INC., D/B/A SMITH'S PHARMACY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION,
EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY, MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS,
INC., and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00453 (D.R.I., November 1, 2024) arises from Defendants'
conspiracy to fix prices paid by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs)
to pharmacies for reimbursement of prescription drug claims in
violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
The PBM Defendants operate in a highly concentrated market.
Defendants Caremark and Express Scripts together process well over
half of all the prescriptions filled in the United States. These
two PBMs, plus Optum Rx (the "Big 3" PBMs), process more than 80
percent, and the Big 6 PBMs (the Big 3, plus Humana, Prime
Therapeutics, and Defendant MedImpact) process more than 95
percent.
The complaint alleges that these PBM Defendants exert their market
power by employing various anticompetitive tactics to restrain
competition in the prescription drug dispensing market, forcing
independent pharmacies, including Plaintiffs, out of business and
thereby increasing the market share of the PBMs' affiliated
pharmacies. Among these tactics is a recent scheme devised by
Defendants to (i) share real time pricing data with one another
using GoodRx as a clearinghouse, and (ii) allocate transactions to
one another in order to maximize the number of claims processed
using prescription discount cards.
As a direct result of the Defendants' alleged conduct, pharmacies
were injured by receiving decreased reimbursement for dispensing
generic prescription drugs and paying increased fees to PBMs
resulting from discount card transactions. This has contributed to
the closure of hundreds of independent pharmacies, thus lessening
competition in the prescription drug dispensing market. And in the
end, consumers will suffer as these restraints on competition lead
to fewer pharmacy choices, lower quality services, and higher
healthcare cost, the suit alleges.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform with
its principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
MCINTYRE TATE LLP
50 Park Row West Suite 109
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 351-7700
E-mail: sprignano@mcintyretate.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
John M. Shaw, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
jshaw@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
GOTHAM DISTRIBUTING: Discloses Video Info to Meta, Mull Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MULL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOTHAM DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION AND OLD
SCHOOL VENTURES, INC., individually and collectively d/b/a
OLDIES.COM, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-06083 (E.D. Pa., November
13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations
of Video Privacy Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
and buying habits of the visitors on its website, www.oldies.com,
without consent. The Defendant embedded within the website a "Meta
Pixel" that was provided by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on
the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a
result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights.
Gotham Distributing Corporation is a company that sells
pre-recorded videos, headquartered in West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania.
Old School Ventures, Inc. is a company that sells pre-recorded
videos based in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Elias A. Kohn, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Facsimile: (215) 238-1986
Email: whoese@kohnswift.com
ekohn@kohnswift.com
- and -
Elliot O. Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com
GREEN DIAMOND: Class Certification in Gregorio Due June 9, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON GREGORIO, et al., v.
GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered Rule 16(B) and Rule
23(D)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion:
Event Date
Deadline for motions related to discovery June 9, 2025
on class certification:
Deadline to complete fact discovery on class July 9, 2025
certification (not to be construed as a
bifurcation of discovery):
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Aug. 8, 2025
and initial expert reports under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) due:
Defendant's opposition to motion for class Oct. 17, 2025
certification, motion to exclude initial
experts, and rebuttal expert reports due:
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for Dec. 17, 2025
class certification, opposition to motion
to exclude initial experts, and motion to
exclude rebuttal experts due:
Defendant's reply in support of motion to Jan. 14, 2026
exclude initial experts and opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude rebuttal
experts due:
Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Feb. 4, 2026
to exclude rebuttal experts due:
Green Diamond is a sixth-generation, family-owned forest products
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QjTX73 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HANESBRANDS INC: Settlement in Toussaint Wins Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nicole Toussaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HANESBRANDS INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00879-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the
Hon. Judge entered an order granting preliminary approval of class
action settlement.
The class action arises out a sophisticated ransomware attack on
HBI discovered by the company in May 2022 (the Data Breach). The
Data Breach implicated certain personally identifiable information
(PII) of certain individuals.
Hanesbrands is an American multinational clothing company based in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xysBcE at no extra
charge.[CC]
HAWES & CURTIS: Battle Sues Over ADA Non-compliant Website
----------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarity
situated, Plaintiff v. Hawes & Curtis (North America), Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11590 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, Hawesandcurtis.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Due to Hawes & Curtis' failure and refusal to remove access
barriers to its website, blind individuals have been and are being
denied equal access to Hawes & Curtis, as well as to the numerous
goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the
website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims under ADA.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Hawes & Curtis (North America), Inc.
owns and maintains the website which provides consumers with access
to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view
men’s and women's shirts, suits, pants, sweaters, polos, coats,
shoes, and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
HERSHEY CO: Nettle Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Chocolate Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
JADA NETTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01891-CCC (M.D. Pa., November 1, 2024) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant for its reckless and/or intentional
practice of failing to disclose the presence of organic fluorine
and/or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the packaging
of several of its chocolate products.
The Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers expect that the
chocolate products they purchase for their individual and family
consumption will not be contaminated (or have a material risk of
being contaminated) with PFAS, substances known to be "forever
chemicals," that are linked to a wide range of health risks such as
cancer, hormone disruption, liver and thyroid problems,
interference with vaccine effectiveness, reproductive harm, and
abnormal fetal development.
The omissions allowed Defendant to capitalize on, and reap enormous
profits from, reasonable consumers who paid a premium price for the
products that omitted material information as to the true quality
and value and/or paid more for the products than they would have
had they known the truth about it, says the suit.
The Hershey Company manufactures chocolate and sugar confectionery
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent A. Coppola, Esq.
PRIBANIC & PRIBANIC
513 Court Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 735-6490
E-mail: vcoppola@pribanic.com
- and -
Janine Pollack, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 5th Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (917) 983-2707
E-mail: jpollack@4-justice.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
- and -
Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite #302
Lake Worth Corridor, FL
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
E-mail: bsackrin@4-justice.com
- and -
Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1550
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (212) 277-5770
E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com
HOLCIM US: Scheduling Conference in Erickson Suit Set for Dec. 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN ERICKSON, v.
HOLCIM US, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09239-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order on scheduling
conference as follows:
1. Counsel for the parties shall attend a scheduling conference
on
Dec. 19, 2024, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 6D of the 1st Street
Courthouse.
2. No later than Nov. 27, 2024, counsel for all appearing
parties
and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall meet,
in
person, telephonically or via video conference, and discuss
the
matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) ("Rule 26(f)") as
well as those items identified in paragraph 4, below.
3. No later than Dec. 5, 2024, counsel for all appearing
parties,
and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any, shall file a
Joint Rule 26(f) Report.
4. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report shall be drafted by plaintiff
(unless the parties agree otherwise) but shall be submitted
and
signed jointly. "Jointly" contemplates a single report,
regardless of how many separately represented parties there
are.
Holcim manufactures cement and other construction-related products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h4pCSZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
HSBC BANK: Fact Discovery in Ni Suit Due Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of
herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-AS-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katharine Parker entered an order that:
-- The Defendant shall produce the 1600 emails responsive to
Plaintiff's request for off-the-clock communications by the 76
HSBC employees for the period ending in 2020 within three
weeks.
The parties shall meet and confer on the Defendant's production
of
emails for the year 2021 and if they are unable to reach a
compromise, by Nov. 20, 2024 the parties shall file a joint
letter
setting forth the dispute in a letter of no more than 4 pages
for
the Court's resolution.
-- The Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of certain opt-in
Plaintiffs based on their failure to participate in discovery
and
to strike their declarations from consideration in connection
with
the pending motion for class certification is due Nov. 20,
2024.
The Plaintiff's opposition is due Dec. 6, 2024. Defendant's
reply
is due Dec. 13, 2024.
-- The Defendant shall be permitted to identify and take the
depositions of five opt-in Plaintiffs not previously noticed
for
deposition who submitted declarations in connection with the
motion for class certification, and the Plaintiffs' counsel
shall
cooperate with Defense counsel to schedule those depositions
before the end of this calendar year.
-- The deadline to complete fact discovery related to class
certification, decertification, and summary judgment is Dec.
31,
2024.
HSBC Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, and
savings accounts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qErfTx at no extra
charge.[CC]
HUMANA INC: Elliot Suit Seeks to Certify Prerecorded Call Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
-- certifying the Prerecorded Call Class, and
-- appointing LawHQ P.C. as Class Counsel.
Humana is a health and well-being company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nESjXE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James S. Wertheim, Esq.
Michael C. Hartmere, Esq.
Brittany N. Clark, Esq.
LAWHQ, P.C.
299 S. Main St. 1300
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (385) 285-1090
E-mail: jim@lawhq.com
Michael.Hartmere@lawhq.com
Brittany.Clark@lawhq.com
JAMES HUMPHREY: Court Reopens Humphrey Suit
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HUMPHREY, et al., v.
JAMES LEBLANC HUMPHREY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00233-JWD-SDJ (M.D. La.),
the Hon. Judge John deGravelles entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' motion to reopen, and lifting the administrative stay
as of the date of this order.
The Court further entered an order reinstate the following motions
that were previously terminated with administrative closures:
1. Doc. 104 Motion to Certify Class filed in Civil Action
20-233,
2. Doc. 25 Motion to Certify Class filed in Civil Action 21-108,
3. Doc. 28 Motion to Strike/Exclude Certain Evidence Offered by
Plaintiff in Support of Motion to Certify Class in Civil
Action
21-108.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gvkOG5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMES LEBLANC: Court Reopens Giroir Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Giroir v. LeBlanc, et al.,
Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John deGravelles
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to reopen, and lifting
the administrative stay as of the date of this order.
The Court further entered an order reinstate the following motions
that were previously terminated with administrative closures:
1. Doc. 104 Motion to Certify Class filed in Civil Action
20-233,
2. Doc. 25 Motion to Certify Class filed in Civil Action 21-108,
3. Doc. 28 Motion to Strike/Exclude Certain Evidence Offered by
Plaintiff in Support of Motion to Certify Class in Civil
Action
21-108.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8wC8aZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHNSON, TN: Bid to Lodge Docs Under Seal Tossed as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe, et al., v. Johnson
City, TN, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071 (E.D. Tenn., Filed June
21, 2023), the Hon. Judge Travis R. Mcdonough entered an order
denying as moot the Plaintiffs' notice of lodging documents under
seal.
The Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibits 4-6, 10, 12-16, 18, 21-25, 27,
and 30 to the Declaration of Vanessa Baehr-Jones in Support of
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
On Nov. 5, 2024, United States Chief District Judge Travis R.
McDonough entered an Order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as moot.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.
Johnson City is in east Tennessee. It's known for outdoor
activities at Winged Deer Park, which offers boating and disc golf,
and Buffalo Mountain Park, with trails and sweeping views.[CC]
JOHNSON, TN: Plaintiff's Bid for Class Cert. Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et. al., v.
JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM
(E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered an order
denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs may file their renewed motion for class
certification following the Court's resolution of their motion for
leave to amend their complaint.
Johnson City is in east Tennessee. It's known for outdoor
activities at Winged Deer Park, which offers boating and disc golf,
and Buffalo Mountain Park, with trails and sweeping views.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1m9sNO at no extra
charge.[CC]
L.L. BEAN: Faces Cook Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
NIKKI COOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L.L. BEAN INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-02332 (C.D. Cal., November 1, 2024) seeks to hold the
Defendant accountable for its unfair, deceptive, and unlawful
policy of displaying false or misleading discount or "sale" prices
in violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, Defendant L.L. Bean has engaged in a
deceptive pricing scheme. L.L. Bean advertises perpetual or near
perpetual discounts on many of its products, supposedly offering
discounts of up to 70% off L.L. Bean's self-created, fictitious
reference prices. The Defendant represents to consumers that its
reference price is the "regular" or "normal" price of the item,
which functions as a new and inflated reference point from which
consumers discount their "savings" on various products.
However, L.L. Bean's reference prices are false because L.L. Bean
rarely, if ever, offers the products for the reference price.
Instead, the inflated reference prices allow L.L. Bean to
continually advertise "sale" events and product discounts in order
to induce consumers, including Plaintiff, into purchasing products.
In reality, the "sale" price is the price at which L.L. Bean
regularly sells the product, but the consumer has been tricked into
thinking she found a great discount, alleges the suit.
L.L. Bean is a retail provider that sells clothing and outdoor
recreation equipment in stores and online via its website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
LACKAWANNA RECYCLING: Burrell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM L. BURRELL, JR.,
et al., v. LACKAWANNA RECYCLING CENTER, INC., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-01891-RDM (M.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order extending the Nov. 11, 2024, deadline for filing a class
certification for 90 days to Feb. 10, 2025.
Counsel for Defendants Lackawanna County and Lackawanna Recycling
Center, Inc. have affirmed they do not oppose this extension.
Plaintiffs are still awaiting significant document production from
the County. This is described in greater detail in Plaintiffs’
Motion for a Status Hearing and will be the subject of the November
8 status hearing.
This is a putative class and collective action against the
Defendants Lackawanna County, Lackawanna County Recycling Center
Inc. and the Lackawanna County Solid Waste Management Authority in
relation to the use of forced prison labor at a recycling center.
On April 21, 2023, the Court issued a scheduling order in this case
setting a date for the filing of Plaintiffs' Class Certification
Motion of January 14, 2023.
On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend the Class
Certification Deadline, requesting an extension of seventy-five
(75) days to continue discovery efforts.
On Jan. 12, 2024, the Court granted the Motion and set Plaintiffs'
deadline to file a motion for class action certification to March
29, 2024.
On March 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Extend the
Class Certification Deadline, requesting an extension of time
through August 12, 2024, to continue discovery efforts and allow
the parties to participate in mediation to see if resolution was
possible.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pqHciX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel E. Nadas, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
William A. Anderson, Esq.
Martha E. Guarnieri, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
777 6th Street, NW
Eleventh Floor
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: (202) 559-2433
E-mail: mhandley@hfajustice.com
wanderson@hfajsutice.com
mguarnieri@hfajustice.com
- and -
Marielle Macher, Esq.
Peter Zurflieh, Esq.
COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT
118 Locust Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone: (717) 236-9486, ext. 214
E-mail: mmacher@cjplaw.org
pzurflieh@cjplaw.org
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Brianne Power, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
1410 High Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80219
Telephone: (720) 239-2060
E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
brianne@towardsjustice.org
LAVOI CORP: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Johnson Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
AIYANNA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LAVOI CORPORATION d/b/a EPI BREADS, Case No.
1:24-cv-05168-TWT (N.D. Ga., Nov. 12, 2024) is a class action
arising out of the recent data security incident and data breach
that was perpetrated against the Defendant, which held in its
possession certain personally identifiable information of the
Plaintiff and other current and former customers and/or employees
of the Defendant, the putative class members.
The suit says that the Data Breach occurred on Aug. 22, 2024. The
Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain
personal information of Defendant's customers and/or employees,
including the Plaintiff. The Defendant has disclosed to the
Attorney General of Maine that the personal information of 10,853
persons was affected. Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and
Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and ongoing risk of
fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and
in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding
of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to the Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and
precisely what specific type of information was accessed.
The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages,
reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief
including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems,
future annual audits, and adequate credit monitoring services
funded by Defendant.
The Plaintiff provided the Defendant with her sensitive PII to
receive services from the Defendant and as a former employee. The
Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach around Oct. 30, 2024,
informing her that her sensitive information was part of the
Defendant's Data Breach.
Lavoi Corporation provides bakery products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ainsworth G. Dudley, Esq.
DUDLEY LAW, LLC
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (404) 687-8205
E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com
- and -
Leigh Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77066
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com
LEGENDS OWO: Settlement Deal in Puller Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL PULLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEGENDS OWO, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00209-RA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order preliminarily approving the
Settlement Agreement in its entirety subject to the Final Approval
Hearing.
The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on March
7, 2025 at 1:00 p.m.
Class Counsel shall file papers in support of their Fee Award and
Class Representative's service award with the Court on or before
December 27, 2024.
The Defendant may, but is not required to, file a response to Class
Counsel’s Fee Petition with the Court on or before October
February 14, 2025.
The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement Class as
defined in the Settlement Agreement:
"All individuals who purchased tickets and paid a processing fee
to
gain entrance to Defendant's Place of Entertainment from
Defendant's Website from August 29, 2022, and through the date
of
Preliminary Approval. 1
Legends is a global premium experiences company that specializes in
delivering holistic solutions for sports and entertainment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=54fxKN at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIVEPERSON INC: Continues to Defend Damri Stockholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liveperson 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 Damri stockholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
In December 2023, a putative stockholder class action entitled
Damri v. LivePerson, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-10517, was filed under the
federal securities laws against the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-Q filings and
forecasts for the first, second, and third quarters of fiscal year
2022 were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the Company's later
disclosures and report on Form 10-K on March 16, 2023.
On May 31, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 1,
2024.
LivePerson is a technology company that "delivers mobile and online
messaging solutions through Conversational Artificial
Intelligence."
LONG BEACH, NY: Denial of Guma Bid to Amend Complaint Endorsed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL GUMA, MICHAEL
D'ANTONI, KEVIN HORN, and TIMOTHY LYONS, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, v. THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, ALL
COUNTY HOOK UP TOWING, INC., d/b/a ALL COUNTY TOWING & RECOVERY,
JOSEPH CALVAGNO, individually, Case No. 2:23-cv-04529-GRB-JMW
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge James Wicks recommends to the Hon. Gary
R. Brown that Plaintiff's Motion to amend the complaint be denied.
The parties are directed to file a joint letter with a proposed
briefing schedule on the motion for class certification within 10
days of Judge Brown's issuance of an Order on this Report and
Recommendation.
The Plaintiffs specifically challenge the City's "Boot and Tow"
policy and program, which consists of seizing and selling motor
vehicles for the sole purpose of collecting monies for unpaid and
often unadjudicated parking tickets, pursuant to Long Beach City
Code ("LBCC") Section 1, Chapter 15, Article VI, Division 2.
The Plaintiffs allege Defendants engaged in unconstitutional
warrantless seizure of their personal vehicles, and deprived the
Plaintiffs of their due process rights and just compensation in
relation to the seizure.
On June 26, 2024, the parties advised the Court that Plaintiffs
requested to amend their Complaint, but that Defendants would not
stipulate to Plaintiffs' proposed amendments.
A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Nov. 6, 2024
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r5hcwa at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jean Marie Smyth, Esq.
Andrew J. Campanelli, Esq.
CAMPANELLI & ASSOCIATES P.C.
1757 Merrick Avenue, Ste 204
Merrick, NY 11566
The Defendants are represented by:
Mark A. Cuthbertson, Esq.
Matthew Joseph DeLuca, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. CUTHBERTSON
434 New York Avenue
Huntington, NY 11743
- and -
Alexander Sendrowitz, Esq.
QUATELA CHIMERI, PLLC
888 Veterans Memorial Highway, Suite 530
Hauppauge, NY 11788
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Davis Seeks Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, DAKOTA KING,
SCOTT E. VOLLMAR, CORY L. HARRIS, and BOBBY R. GARRETT, III,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-11060-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:
1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in
this
action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement
("Settlement Agreement"), fully executed on Aug. 1, 2024, and
previously filed with the Court on Aug. 1, 2024;
2. Maintaining class certification of this action pursuant to
the
Court's Opinion and Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class
Certification on Jan. 25, 2024 and Amended Preliminary
Approval
Order;
3. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was
notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the
circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class
members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an
objection and obtain additional information; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and
proper.
On Aug 28, 2024, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement in
this Action, which provides for the creation of a $2,900,000.00
Settlement Fund.
The Settlement Class is defined (as modified by the Court's
Preliminary Approval Order) as:
"All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family
members,
who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any
time
between April 30, 2014, through the date of entry of this
Preliminary Approval Order [August 28, 2024].
Magna International is a Canadian parts manufacturer for
automakers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nd4tcC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
James A. Wells, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
jayw@capozziadler.com
- and -
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
MUHIC LAW LLC
923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Telephone: (856) 324-8252
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com
- and -
Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170
Gross Pointe Park, MI 48230
Telephone: (313) 821-5905
Facsimile: (313) 821-5906
E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Harrell Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE MEN'S WEARHOUSE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10450
(D.N.J., Nov. 12, 2024) is an action arising from Defendant's
failure to make its website, https://menswearhouse.com, accessible
to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
On Sept. 28, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
find relaxed-fit jeans in classic style. While visiting the
website, the Plaintiff encountered various accessibility issues
that disrupted his browsing experience. One significant issue was
that several links had unclear titles, making it difficult for the
Plaintiff to understand their purpose. The lack of clear
descriptions for the links and their destination pages left him
confused, preventing him from effectively navigating the site and
completing his purchase, the suit contends.
Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's Website, blind and
visually-impaired customers such as the Plaintiff, who need
screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods,
and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The
access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of
Plaintiff's full and equal access in the past, and now deter the
Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website, the suit
adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Men's Wearhouse offers men's clothing such as jeans, pants, shorts,
shirts, sweaters, jackets, coats, boots, slippers, and various
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
Flushing, NY 11367
14441 70th Road
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
MISS KITTY'S: Jones Bid for Sanctions Denied without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISIS JONES, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals, v. MISS
KITTY'S, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01327-MAB (S.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Mark Beatty entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion
for sanctions.
-- The denial of Plaintiff's motion is without prejudice to
refiling
at a later date.
-- In short, Plaintiff's counsel has every reason to question
whether
Defendant's production is faulty and incomplete.
-- Additionally, while both parties have suggested that there may
be
other types of records through which dancers could potentially
be
identified, the Plaintiff did not make any argument or present
any
facts on this point, and therefore the Court declines to
address
it.
The Plaintiff filed this putative class / collective action in
April 2023 on behalf of herself and other exotic dancers against
Miss Kitty's Inc. for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff alleged that Miss Kitty's failed to pay dancers any
wages for the hours they worked, unlawfully required dancers to
relinquish a portion of the tips they earned, and unlawfully
charged dancers a stage fee for each shift that they worked.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pv6chu at no extra
charge.[CC]
MOBIS ALABAMA: Filing of Class Cert Response Extended to Dec. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE OSWALDO AQUINO
MARTINEZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MOBIS ALABAMA, LLC, doing business as
HYUNDAI MOBIS, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00145-TCB-RGV (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Russell Vineyard entered an order granting the
consent motion for extension of time for the Defendants to respond
to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.
The time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification, is extended to Dec. 3, 2024.
Mobis Alabama is a Tier 1 supplier to Hyundai Motor Manufacturing
Alabama and Kia Motor Manufacturing Georgia.
The Defendants include Mobis Alabama, Kia Georgia, Inc., GB2G, Inc.
SPJ Connect, Inc., and Youngjin Lee
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9nciUK at no extra
charge.[CC]
MONICA VINADER: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Riley Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONICA VINADER, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08596 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law
and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.monicavinader.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: inaccurate labeling of form fields, inaccurate
focus order, ambiguous link texts, the denial of keyboard access
for some interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus,
inaccurate landmark structure, the lack of navigation links, and
the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a
mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Monica Vinader, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, New York 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
MOOG INC: Failed to Pay Premium Wages, Khan Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MUHAMMAD KHAN, on behalf of the general public, and other
"aggrieved employees," v. MOOG, INC., a New York Corporation, MOOG
MILITARY AIRCRAFT, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, MOOG
AIRCRAFT GROUP, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV29595 (Cal. Super., Nov. 12, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants have failed to compensate the Plaintiff and all other
aggrieved employees at the rate of one hour or pay at his or her
regular rate of pay for each day on which one or more meal or rest
periods were not provided.
The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were routinely
unable, and not authorized to take their 10-minute rest periods and
were also unable to take an uninterrupted 30- minute meal break for
every shift they worked. Specifically, the Plaintiff and other
California employees were further forced to keep their personal
cell phone on during their meal and rest breaks in case of
emergencies or to address the needs of Defendants' personnel, the
suit says.
Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay premium wages of one hour's
pay for each missed meal and rest break to the Plaintiff and
Defendant's California employees who were denied timely meal and
rest breaks, in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7, 512, and
558, and IWC Order No. 5-2001, Section 12.
The Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees were required to
work off the clock for the Defendant. The Plaintiff and Defendant's
California employees were instructed to work for approximately 5-15
minutes after they had clocked out to receive next day's
assignments from the Defendants. The Defendant did not compensate
the Plaintiff and Defendant's California employees if these tasks
were completed outside of his regular work hour, the suit adds.
The Plaintiff also claims that the Defendant has failed to pay all
overtime wages due to non-exempt employees. As a result, employees
are not properly compensated for work performance in excess of
eight (8) hours in a workday and work performed in excess of 40
hours in a workweek at a rate of no less than one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee in California, including in and around the city of
Torrance, County of Los Angeles.
Moog Inc. is a worldwide designer, manufacturer, and integrator of
precision control components and systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Otkupman, Esq.
Nidah Farishta, Esq.
OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 123
Westlake Village, CA 91362
Telephone: (818) 293-5623
Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
Nidah@OLFLA.com
MORTON WILLIAMS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Morton Williams Supermarkets, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-07834 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2024)
accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the York State Civil
Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The case arises out of Defendant's policy and practice of
maintaining an inaccessible website denying blind persons access to
the goods and services of its website. Due to Defendant's policy
and practice of failing to remove access barriers, blind persons
have been and are being denied full and equal access to
independently browse Defendant's website, says the suit.
Headquartered in Hartsdale, NY, Morton Williams Supermarkets, Inc.
controls and operates Mortonwilliams.com, a commercial website and
online platform that provides groceries and prepared food offered
by Defendant in connection with its physical locations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS: Sherley Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY SHERLEY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MUSKOGEE COUNTY EMS., Case No. 6:23-cv-00241-JFH-GLJ (E.D. Okla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying settlement collective and authorize notice.
Mr. Sherley contends that she satisfies the standard for
conditional certification and notice by showing the Settlement
Collective is similarly situated.
In this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action, Mr.
Sherley seeks to recover unpaid overtime he alleges MCEMS owes its
Paramedics, Drivers, and Dispatchers.
Sherley alleges MCEMS failed to include shift differential pay in
the rate for overtime pay, which resulted in less overtime pay than
required by the FLSA.
Under the Agreement, the parties agree to the following group of
EMTs will receive notice of the proposed settlement:
"Any EMT employed by MCEMS who was paid by the hour plus ...
shift-differential pay and who worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek during the period July 18, 2020 to Oct. 31, 2023.
("Settlement Collective")."
Muskogee County EMS is a provider of emergency medical services and
firefighting coordination in Muskogee County, Oklahoma.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZwBVzI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David I. Moulton, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com
NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 24, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and STEVEN
SHOWALTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC., NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC.,
CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, and AB LENDING SPV I LLC, d/b/a
Mountain Ridge Capital; Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.),
the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered a third amended case
progression order as follows:
1. The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and completing
expert disclosures for all experts expected to testify at
trial,
(both retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and
non-
retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C)), are:
-- For the plaintiffs: Jan. 10, 2025
-- For the defendants: Feb. 10, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' rebuttal: Mar. 3, 2025
2. Motion to Certify a Class Action.
-- Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall
be
filed by Feb. 24, 2025, in the absence of which any claim
in
the pleadings that this is a class action shall be deemed
abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had
been filed and denied by the Court.
-- The Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs'
class
certification motion by Mar. 17, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of motion
for
class certification by Mar. 24, 2025.
3. The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is Mar. 3,
2025.
4. The deadline for completing written discovery under Rules 33,
34, 36, and 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
Mar.
3, 2025.
5. Motions to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36,
and
45 must be filed by Mar. 17, 2025.
6. The planning conference set for Jan. 29, 2025, is cancelled.
The
trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. A
planning conference to discuss case progression, dispositive
motions, the parties’ interest in settlement, and the trial
and
pretrial conference settings will be held with the
undersigned
magistrate judge on March 5, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. by
telephone.
Nebraska Book operates a chain of bookstores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OXgr4h at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEWARK GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Newmark Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the
plaintiffs in an antitrust violation class suit have filed a second
amended complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and the
court's decision is forthcoming.
On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No.
1:23-cv-00265).
The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited
partners on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract
against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to
make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to
deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law.
The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC
Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act
of 1890, as amended, on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade.
In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and
economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings
partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included
in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in
the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from
competition, and limit innovation.
The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained
as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly
anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least
$5,000,000.
The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit. However, as with any
litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and in response, on May 31,
2023, plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging
similar allegations as a basis for claims for breach of contract
and violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
On February 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
repleading claims for violation of federal antitrust laws and
challenging economic forfeiture and non-compete obligations as
violative of federal competition law.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
The motion is fully briefed as of May 2024 and a decision is
forthcoming.
Cranford, New Jersey-based The Newark Group, Inc., manufactures and
sells recycled paperboard and paperboard products. The company
operates in three segments: Paperboard, Converted Products and
International.
NOVA LINES: Faces Chekobi Class Action Lawsuit in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nova Lines, Inc. The
case is captioned as Chekobi Trails of Tears Trucking, LLC et al.
v. Nova Lines, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09558 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 4,
2024).
The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sunil R. Harjani.
Nova lines is a midwest flatbed trucking company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J Wilmes, Esq.
Karen Villagomez, Esq.
HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 580-0100
E-mail: cwilmes@hsplegal.com
kvillagomez@hsplegal.com
NRP FOOD: Correa Wins Bid for Conditional Collective Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blanca Correa, v. NRP Food
Solutions LLC and Nitin Pendharkar, Case No. 1:24-cv-05220-AS
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order
granting the motion for conditional collective certification.
The proposed consent form and proposed notice are both approved,
and they may be distributed to Covered Employees by mail, email, or
text message. Consent forms for opt-in plaintiffs may be sent
directly to plaintiff's counsel.
By Nov. 18, 2024, defendants must produce an Excel file containing
Covered Employees' names, titles, compensation rates, dates of
employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and all
known telephone numbers.
If mail is returned as undeliverable, defendants must provide that
employee's Social Security number within 5 days of being notified
that the mailpiece was bounced back. The proposed notice and
proposed consent form must be posted in defendants' places of
business where Covered Employees are employed by Nov. 13, 2024.
Finally, the FLSA statute of limitations is tolled between Sept.
17, 2024, and the end of the opt-in period.
NRP is a Spanish and Latin American cuisine restaurant.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uoFOMu at no extra
charge.[CC]
NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuscale Power Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 8, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon.
Multiple shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon against the Company and
certain of its current or former officers, namely John Hopkins,
Chris Colbert, Robert Hamady and Clayton Scott: (1) Sigman v.
NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No. 23-1689, filed November 15,
2023), and (2) Ryckewaert v. NuScale Power Corp., et al. (Case No.
23-1956, filed December 26, 2023).
These lawsuits assert virtually identical allegations and claims
and were consolidated before the same judge on February 2, 2024.
The lawsuits assert claims under the federal securities laws and
allege that the Company and members of management made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects, and specifically about certain of the Company's
agreements with customers.
The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 18, 2024 that makes
similar allegations as the original complaints.
Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss on June 17, 2024, and
plaintiff filed a brief in opposition on August 1, 2024. Shortly
thereafter, plaintiffs indicated they intended to seek leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint to add allegations relating to the
Company's disclosure about the SEC inquiry.
Defendants consented to plaintiffs' request to amend, with the
express caveat that defendants believed the proposed amendment to
be futile and defendants would move to dismiss any Second Amended
Complaint, including any new allegations.
On September 20, 2024, plaintiffs filed the Second Amended
Complaint, and on November 1, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss.
Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion to dismiss is due
December 17, 2024, and Defendants' reply is due January 24, 2025.
While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this
matter, the Company does not believe it is probable that a loss
will be incurred and the Company has not recorded any liability as
a result of these actions.
Heaquartered in Portland, OR, NuScale is a nuclear power company
that develops small modular reactor technology. Its common stock
and warrants trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"SMR." [BN]
OLDS PRODUCTS: Quiroga Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMON QUIROGA is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Raymon Quiroga,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Olds Products Co. of Illinois, Defendant, Case No.
2:22-cv-00390-SCD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.
The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On July 12, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Stephen C. Dries denied on Oct. 17, 2024. The Court
ruled that the Plaintiff failed to show by a preponderance of the
evidence that there are questions of law or fact common to the
class or that any common question predominates over individual
questions. The Plaintiff, therefore, failed to meet his burden on
each of the requirements of Rule 23. Accordingly, the court denied
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The appellate case is captioned Raymon Quiroga v. Olds Products Co.
of Illinois, Case No. 24-8024, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, filed on October 31, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner RAYMON QUIROGA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
David Matthew Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Defendant-Respondent OLDS PRODUCTS CO. OF ILLINOIS is represented
by:
Matthew R. DeLange, Esq.
Robert Stephen Driscoll, Esq.
REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN S.C.
1000 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 298-1000
(414) 298-8272
OMNI FAMILY: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Mitchell Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DERAY MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of his minor children
J.M. and A.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OMNI FAMILY HEALTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-01384-CDB (E.D. Cal., Nov. 12,
2024) is a major data breach case involving extremely private
personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health
information ("PHI") for hundreds of thousands of patients.
On or before Aug. 7, 2024, Omni was subject to a cyberattack on its
corporate network. Omni apparently did not detect the breach within
its systems itself. It only became aware that information was taken
on its systems when a third party claimed it had stolen customer
data. However, Omni did not begin notifying patients until at least
Oct. 10, 2024 more than 2 months later.
Initial reports indicated the data breach impacted more than
468,000 individuals. The compromised information included extremely
sensitive information that criminals could use to commit fraud and
identity theft crimes. Members of the plaintiff class suffered harm
in the loss of their private medical and personal information and
the extraordinary risk of sale of this data to criminals over the
dark web. Even members of the class who have not yet been victims
of identity theft and fraud suffer from significant stress and
anxiety about the potential for future harm and have to expend
significant time and effort to engage in various services and
efforts in the wake of the data breach, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, individually, on behalf of his minor children, and
on behalf of a nationwide class, alleges claims of negligence,
breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and invasion
of privacy.
The Plaintiff also alleges claims on behalf of a California
subclass under California law for violation of California's
Customer Records Act, and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, violation of California's Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act, and seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Mr. Mitchell and his minor children used Defendant's services.
Accordingly, he entrusted the Defendant with sensitive PII and PHI
for himself and his children. He received three data breach letters
from the defendant addressed to himself and his children.
Omni provides quality healthcare services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Telephone: (415) 788-4220
Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
OPPFI INC: Continues to Defend Fiduciary Duties-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
OppFi 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 fiduciary duties-related class suit in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Case
No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of Company
stockholders naming certain of FGNA's former directors and officers
and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors, LLC (the
"Sponsor"), as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA's merger with
OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The
lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption
rights, and attorneys' fees.
Neither the Company nor any of the Company's current officers or
directors are parties to the lawsuit. The Company is obligated to
indemnify certain of the defendants in the action.
The Company has tendered defense of this action under its
directors' and officers' insurance policy.
Due to the early stage of this case, neither the likelihood that a
loss, if any, will be realized, nor an estimate of the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, can be determined.
OppFi Inc., formerly FG New America Acquisition Corp. (FGNA),
collectively with its subsidiaries, is a mission-driven fintech
platform that provided access to credit with digital specialty
finance products.
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL: Court Stays Discovery in Baker Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Paramount Global 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
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware stayed the discovery in
the Baker class suit until the resolution of any motions to dismiss
any operative complaint following resolution of the Leadership
Motion.
On July 24, 2024, Scott Baker (the "Plaintiff"), a purported holder
of Paramount Class B Common Stock, filed a putative class action
lawsuit (the "Baker Action") in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware against NAI, Shari E. Redstone, Barbara M. Byrne, Linda
M. Griego, Judith A. McHale, Charles E. Phillips, Jr., Susan
Schuman, Skydance and David Ellison (the "Complaint").
The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Paramount's
Class B stockholders in connection with the negotiation and
approval of the Transaction Agreement, among other claims. The
Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as
other relief.
On November 4, 2024, the Court granted a stipulation filed by the
parties in the Baker Action agreeing to (i) postpone briefing on
motions to dismiss until the filing or designation of an operative
complaint following the resolution of Plaintiff's motion to appoint
him and the Baerlocher Family Trust, a purported holder of
Paramount Class B Common Stock, as co-lead plaintiffs and Berger
Montague PC as interim class counsel (the "Leadership Motion") and
(ii) stay discovery until the resolution of any motions to dismiss
any operative complaint following resolution of the Leadership
Motion.
Paramount Global, Inc. doing business as Paramount Plus --
https://www.paramountplus.com/ -- is an American subscription video
on-demand over-the-top streaming service owned by Paramount
Global.[BN]
PREMERA BLUE: Partial Summary Judgment Bid Renoted to Dec. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B.,
individually and on behalf of their minor child A.B.; C.M. and
A.H., individually and on behalf of their minor child J.M.; and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered a class
certification order as follows:
(1) The Court defers ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and the motion is renoted to Dec. 13, 2024.
(2) The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, and
defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, are renoted
to
Dec. 13, 2024.
On or before Dec. 6, 2024, the plaintiff' shall file a
consolidated response to defendants' cross-motion for
summary
judgment and reply in support of their motion for partial
summary judgment.
(3) The Defendant's motion to seal, is noted for Nov. 22,
2024.
Any response shall be filed by Nov. 18, 2024, and any reply
is
due on the noting date.
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qsKhwj at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Cook Balks at Illegal Use of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY COOK and ESTHER KELLEY-COOK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and THE LAW OFFICES OF
KANNER & PINTALUGA, P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 4:24-cv-04423 (S.D. Tex., November 11, 2024) alleges
claims for barratry, conspiracy, and statutory violations,
including Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Driver's Privacy
Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of illegally sharing crash
victims' personal information for solicitation. The Plaintiffs,
along with others similarly affected, were contacted by law firm
Kanner & Pintaluga after reporting their motor vehicle crashes to
the insurance company, Progressive. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs
seek justice for being exploited through Defendants' fraudulent
client-solicitation scheme.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company is an Ohio insurance company
that provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters,
business, life, and health insurance services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Tom Kherkher, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com
tkherkher@eksm.com
lmontgomery@eksm.com
akykta@eksm.com
RED WING: Harrell Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA
----------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Red Wing Brands of America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-10419 (D.N.J., November 11, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to
legally blind individuals, which violates the effective
communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Allegedly, the Defendant's website contains several access barriers
that make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to
enjoy and learn about the services at Defendant's website.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
Red Wing Brands of America, Inc. owns and operates the
Redwingshoes.com online retail store across the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
14441 70th Road,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
RHINEBECK BANCORP: Herrera Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RHINEBECK BANCORP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08639 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 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://www.rhinebeckbank.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, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Rhinebeck Bancorp, Inc. 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
ROYAL LOUNGE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Rafhat Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RAFIULLAH RAFHAT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROYAL LOUNGE LLC and AHMAD
HUSSAIN, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01008 (E.D. Tex., November
13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a salaried employee.
Royal Lounge LLC is a restaurant owner and operator with a
principal place of business in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Colby Qualls, Esq.
FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
400 North Saint Paul Street, Ste. 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 210-2100
Email: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com
RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Court Recommends Bogan Class Cert Bid Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KETRIC L. BOGAN, v.
RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-00664-ECM-KFP (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Kelly Fitzgerald
Pate recommends that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.
2. This case be referred to the undersigned for further
proceedings.
The Court further entered an order that by Nov. 19, 2024, the
parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties
must specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made.
Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered
by the Court. This Recommendation is not a final order, and it is
therefore not appealable.
The Plaintiff is a pro se inmate unschooled in the law who seeks to
represent the interests of inmates currently incarcerated at the
Russell County Jail.
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ITD5wY
at no extra charge.[CC]
SIG SAUER: Glasscock Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GLASSCOCK, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SIG SAUER,
INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
(1) granting his motion for class certification;
(2) appointing Joshua Glasscock as the class representative; and
(3) appointing as class counsel the attorneys of Williams Dirks
Dameron LLC and Lear Werts LLP.
The Plaintiff contends that the class certification in this case is
appropriate. The factors of Rule 23 are met.
The case concerns a defectively designed pistol, the Sig Sauer
P320. Sig Sauer designed the P320 without any external safety
features, even though the pistol is effectively cocked (i.e., ready
to fire) the moment a round is chambered.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class:
"All persons who purchased a Sig Sauer model P320 pistol
without
an external thumb safety primarily for personal, family or
household purposes in the state of Missouri from Sept. 1, 2017,
through the present."
Sig Sauer is a firearms manufacturer that designs, manufactures,
and markets a pistol known as the P320.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l7nzrp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Williams, Esq.
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Clinton J. Mann, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com
matt@williamsdirks.com
cmann@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Todd C. Werts, Esq.
LEAR WERTS LLP
103 Ripley Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Telephone: (573) 875-1991
E-mail: werts@learwerts.com
SIMILASAN CORP: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Plowden v. Similasan
Corp., Case No. 1:23-cv-02511 (D. Colo., Filed Sept. 26, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Daniel D. Domenico entered an order referring motion to
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak:
-- unopposed motion to Certify Class for Purposes of Settlement,
for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and Appointment of
Settlement
Class Counsel filed by David Plowden, Kamille Faye Vinluan-
Jularbal, Mario Ortega.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
fraud.
Similasan distributes pharmaceutical products.[CC]
SIMILASAN CORP: Plowden Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PLOWDEN, MARIO
ORTEGA, and KAMILLE FAYE VINLUAN-JULARBAL, each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMILASAN CORP., a
Colorado Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-02511-DDD-STV (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
1. Preliminarily approving of the Parties' proposed class action
Settlement Agreement;
2. Certifying the proposed Settlement Class for settlement
purposes;
3. Appointing Named Plaintiffs David Plowden, Mario Ortega and
Kamille Faye Vinluan-Jularbal as class representatives of the
Settlement Class;
4. Appointing Melissa S. Weiner of Pearson Warshaw, LLP, Nick
Suciu
III and Rachel Soffin of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC, Jonas Jacobson of Dovel Luner LLP and William
H.
Anderson of Handley, Farah & Anderson PLLC as Class Counsel;
5. Approving of Notice to the Settlement Class;
6. Granting a stay of all proceedings in this litigation against
the Released Persons except as necessary to effectuate the
Settlement Agreement or as otherwise agreed to by the
Parties;
and
7. Setting a hearing date for the Final Fairness Hearing to
consider final approval of the Parties' Settlement.
Similasan distributes pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hu0UAJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William H. Anderson, Esq.
Simon Wiener, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
Boulder, CO 80305
Telephone: (303) 800-9109
E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
swiener@hfajustice.com
- and -
Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
Ryan T. Gott, Esq.
PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
328 Barry Avenue S., Suite 200
Wayzata, MN 55391
Telephone: (612) 389-0600
E-mail: mweiner@pwfirm.com
rgott@pwfirm.com
- and -
Nick Suciu III, Esq.
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301
Telephone: (313) 303-3472
E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com
tkashima@milberg.com
- and -
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
SIMPLY GOOD: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Says
------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY GOOD FOODS USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No.1:24-cv-08540 (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website, https://atkins.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant failed make its website available in a manner
compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered at Denver, CO, Simply Good Foods USA, Inc. owns and
maintains the Atkins online retail store, as well as the Atkins
interactive website which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including information about low carb
snacks and weight loss plans. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are 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
SINCLAIR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinclair 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 a consolidated antitrust class suit in the
Northern District of Illinois.
The Company is aware of twenty-two putative class action lawsuits
that were filed against the Company following published reports of
the DOJ investigation into the exchange of pacing data within the
industry.
On October 3, 2018, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois. The consolidated action alleges that
the Company and thirteen other broadcasters conspired to fix prices
for commercials to be aired on broadcast television stations
throughout the United States and engaged in unlawful information
sharing, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The consolidated action seeks damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
interest, as well as injunctions against adopting practices or
plans that would restrain competition in the ways the plaintiffs
have alleged.
The Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on November 6,
2020.
Discovery commenced shortly after that and is continuing.
Under the current schedule set by the Court, fact discovery is
scheduled to close 90 days after a Special Master completes his
review of the plaintiffs' objections to the defendant's privilege
claims.
That privilege review is ongoing.
On August 18, 2023, the defendants filed objections to the Special
Master's First Report and Recommendations with the Court.
The Court overruled the defendants' objections on January 31, 2024.
The Special Master has not indicated when he expects to complete
his privilege review.
On December 8, 2023, the Court granted final approval of the
settlements the plaintiffs had reached with four of the original
defendants (CBS, Fox, Cox Media, and ShareBuilders), who agreed to
pay a total of $48 million to settle the plaintiffs' claims against
them.
The Company and the other non-settling defendants continue to
believe the lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend themselves against all such claims.
Headquartered in Hunt Valley, MD, Sinclair, Inc. is the operator of
Tennischannel.com, one of the most popular sports streaming
services in the country dedicated to providing prerecorded and live
coverage of tennis and other racquetball sports. [BN]
SIRIUS XM: Opposition Brief to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Campbell, et al., v.
Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-02261 (C.D. Ill., Filed
Nov. 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Colin Stirling Bruce entered an
order setting the following deadlines:
-- Party depositions shall take place by: Jan. 15, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs shall disclose any class Nov. 18, 2024
certification experts, provide any expert
reports, and move for class certification
by:
-- The Defendant shall disclose any class Feb. 5, 2025
certification experts, provide any expert
reports, and file its brief in opposition
to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification by:
-- The Plaintiffs shall reply in further March 19, 2025
support of their motion for class
certification by:
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Sirius is an American broadcasting corporation headquartered in
Midtown Manhattan, New York City, that provides satellite radio and
online radio services operating in the United States.[CC]
SPACE COAST: Seeks Leave to File Supplemental Evidence Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RENDON LEYVA, v.
SPACE COAST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:24-cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting Defendant's
unopposed request for leave to file a response to the Plaintiff's
supplemental evidence and to supplement the record on class
certification.
On Oct. 28, 2024, the Plaintiff submitted an unopposed motion to
substitute exhibits and supplement the record on class
certification. This Court granted the motion several days later. As
part of his motion, the Plaintiff introduced new evidence and
pages' worth of additional arguments related to his motion for
class certification to which Space Coast has had no opportunity to
respond.
Although the credit union did not procedurally oppose Plaintiff's
motion, it noted that it reserved its right to seek leave to
respond substantively to any new evidence and arguments. Space
Coast now seeks this leave. Good cause exists for allowing the
response: As just noted, Space Coast has not had an opportunity to
respond to the evidence and arguments presented in Plaintiff’s
motion.
As a matter of fairness to Space Coast, it should have a chance to
explain why this new evidence does not salvage Plaintiff’s
defective motion for class certification. Similarly, allowing for
opposing views on this evidence will provide the Court with a
complete understanding of this evidence and help it reach the best
decision.
Additionally, Space Coast seeks leave to file a supplemental and
now-final version of Plaintiff's Exhibit H—Space Coast's
Responses to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories.
Space Coast has conferred with Plaintiff regarding both leave to
file a response to his new evidence and tendering Space Coast’s
Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Set of
Interrogatories. Plaintiff does not oppose the requested relief.
Space Coast Credit Union operates as a financial cooperative.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eTUZ5v at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Moises T. Grayson, Esq.
BLAXBERG GRAYSON KUKOFF &
FORTEZA PA
25 SE Second Avenue – Suite 730
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 381-7979
E-mail: space@blaxgray.com
moises.grayson@blaxgray.com
- and -
Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
Eric T. Werlinger, Esq.
Christopher T. Vazquez, Esq.
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
2121 Avenue Of The Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 788-4400
E-mail: stuart.richter@katten.com
eric.werlinger@katten.com
christopher.vazquez@katten.com
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Class Settlement in Dinsmore Gets Initial Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marvin B. Dinsmore, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Staghorn Petroleum II, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00369-JAR (E.D.
Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jason Robertson entered an order:
-- granting preliminary approval of class action settlement,
-- certifying the class for settlement purposes,
-- approving form and manner of notice, and
-- setting date for final fairness hearing.
This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs Marvin B.
Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as Administrators of the Estate
of David D. Dinsmore, on behalf of themselves and as
representatives of a class of owners, against Staghorn Petroleum
II, LLC, for the alleged failure to pay statutory interest on
payments made outside the time periods set forth in the Production
Revenue Standards Act, 52 Okla. St. section 570.1 et seq. (the
"PRSA") for royalty and overriding royalty oil-and-gas production
proceeds from wells in Oklahoma.
The certified Settlement Class is defined as follows:
"All non-excluded persons or entities who own royalty or
overriding
royalty interests in Defendant's wells and who, during the Claim
Period: (1) received Late Payments from Defendant for
oil-and-gas
proceeds attributable to royalty or overriding royalty interests
in
Oklahoma wells; or whose royalty or overriding proceeds were
sent
as unclaimed property to a government entity by Defendant; and
(2)
who have not already been paid statutory interest on Late
Payments
for such royalty or overriding royalty interests."
A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition means
payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production from
and
an oil-and-gas well after the statutory periods identified in
Okla.
Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) (i.e., commencing not later
than six (6) months after the date of first sale, and thereafter
not later than the last day of the second succeeding month after
the end of the month within which such production is sold). Late
Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds to an owner
under
Okla. Stat. tit. 52, 570.10(B)(3) (minimum pay); (b) prior
period
adjustments; or (c) pass-through payments.
Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,
predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
agencies,
departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of
America
or the State of Oklahoma; (3) any Indian tribe as defined at 30
U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allottee as defined at 30
U.S.C.
section 1702(2); and (4) the persons or entities listed on the
Additional Exclusion List, including affiliates and subsidiaries
of
each.
Staghorn provides oil and gas production services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OIUQkk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Reagan E. Bradford, Esq.
Ryan K. Wilson, Esq.
BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC
431 Main Street, Suite D
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 698-2770
Facsimile: (405) 234-5506
E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com
ryan@bradwil.com
- and -
James U. White, Jr., Esq.
JAMES U. WHITE, JR., INC.
Oklahoma City, OK 73154
Telephone: (405) 842–7545
Facsimile: (405) 235–1592
E-mail: jwhite@wcgflaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Travis P. Brown, Esq.
MAHAFFEY & GORE, P.C.
300 N.E. 1st Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73104
Telephone: (405) 236-0478
E-mail: trbrown@mahaffeygore.com
STALLION EXPRESS: McCatty Class Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCatty v. Stallion
Express, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-10224 (D. Mass., Filed Jan.
29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Margaret R. Guzman entered an order
referring case to Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy.
Referred for ruling on motions are the following:
-- motion to dismiss,
-- motion to dismiss and to compel individual arbitration,
-- motion to Certify Class (Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Conditional Certification).
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Stallion Express is an active carrier in Humble, Texas.[CC]
STERIS CORP: Parties Seek to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DRAGUTIN RADIC, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. STERIS CORPORATION, an Ohio Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01174-AJB-VET (S.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying class
certification briefing schedule, pursuant to which Defendant's
deadline to file its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification shall be Jan. 27, 2025; Plaintiff's deadline to file
a reply to Defendant's opposition shall be Feb. 24, 2025; and the
hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be
continued from Jan. 16, 2025 to a date convenient for the Court.
Steris is a provider of products and services that support patient
care with an emphasis on infection prevention.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnmG2J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
S. Adam Spiewak, Esq.
DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
9820 Willow Creek Road, Suite 275
San Diego, CA 92131
E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com
adam@dychterlaw.com
- and -
Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
KARASIK LAW FIRM
16021 Aiglon St.
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David G. Hoiles, Jr., Esq.
Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
Claudia Kozlowska, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 573-4900
Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
E-mail: David.Hoiles@jacksonlewis.com
Lana.Nassar@jacksonlewis.com
Claudia.Kozlowska@jacksonlewis.com
SUNVALLEYTEK INT'L: Oh Seeks OK of Corrected Notice
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID OH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNVALLEYTEK
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SUNVALLEY (HK) LIMITED, Case No.
3:22-cv-00866-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order directing and approving the form, content, and manner of
corrective notice to the certified Class informing Class Members of
the certification of this case.
Pursuant to the Court's Nov. 1, 2024 order, the Plaintiff requests
that the Court approve the corrective e-mail notice attached as
Exhibit A.
Additionally, the online Opt-Out form on the class website
previously incorrectly required a Class Member ID to submit an
online exclusion form. This has been updated, and a Class Member ID
is no longer required for submission. The link to the online
Opt-Out form is available on the website landing page
(www.consumerelectronicclasscertification.com)
Sunvalleytek is a Chinese consumer electronics company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3j2k9Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Alexander Erwig, Esq.
Stephen Andrews, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
alexander@dovel.com
stephen@dovel.com
SUPERB CABLE: Foreman Sues Over Worker Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------
CHAD FOREMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SUPERB CABLE CONNECTIONS, LLC., a Florida
Limited Liability Company, and ROSHAUN CUNNINGHAM, Individually,
Defendant(s), Case No. 9:24-cv-81410-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November 11,
2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff worked in this capacity from approximately July 15,
2023, through August 12, 2024. As a groundman, the Plaintiff was
paid a daily rate in exchange for his work performed for
Defendants, without regard for the number of hours worked for
Defendants each week. However, the Plaintiff and the collective
members but were not properly compensated at time-and-one-half
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in one or more workweeks as a result of Defendants
misclassifying them as independent contractors, despite treating
them as employees, the suit says.
Headquartered in Palm Beach County, Superb Cable Connections, LLC
operates in the transportation/utilities industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
cseldin@forthepeople.com
TONY CHACHERE’S: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TONY CHACHERE’S CREOLE FOODS OF
OPELOUSAS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08541 (S.D.N.Y.,
November 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
October 29, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a New Original Chili
Seasoning Mix from Defendant and to view the information on the
website, https://www.tonychachere.com, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person.
Tony Chachere's Creole Foods of Opelousas, Inc. owns and operates
the website which offers goods and services including information
about its creole seasonings, marinades, and merchandise, as well as
other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy
policies and internet pricing specials. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
TTEC HOLDINGS: Imposes Illegal Tobacco Surcharges, Parker Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHEMIA PARKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TTEC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03148-DDD-MEH (D. Colo., November 13, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and breach of fiduciary
duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's practice of charging a tobacco
surcharge that unjustly forces certain employees to pay higher
premiums for their health insurance. The TTEC Services Corporation
Health and Welfare Benefit Plan does not provide the required
reasonable alternative standard, and even if it did, it has failed
to adequately notify employees about the availability of such an
alternative in all its Plan communications. Consequently, the
Defendant's tobacco surcharge violates ERISA's anti-discrimination
provisions by imposing additional costs on employees who use
tobacco products without meeting the legal requirements for a bona
fide wellness program. As a result of the imposition of the
unlawful and discriminatory tobacco surcharge, TTEC enriched itself
at the expense of the Plan, resulting in it receiving a windfall,
says the suit.
TTEC Holdings, Inc. is a customer experience company, with its
principal place of business in Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
Email: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@steuvesiegel.com
- and -
Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
The Flagship Building
200 Westwoods Drive
Liberty, MO 64068
Telephone: (816) 781-0002
Facsimile: (816) 781-1984
Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Certification Bid by Jan. 17, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER,
INC., and X CORP., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties asks the Court to enter an order revising the briefing and
hearing schedule as follows:
Deadline for Dr. Killingswort's revised Dec. 6, 2024
report (if any):
Deadline for deposition of Dr. Killingsworth: Dec. 20, 2024
Defendant's opposition to class certification: Jan. 17, 2025
Plaintiff's reply in support of class Feb. 14, 2025
certification:
Hearing: Mar 20, 2025
at 10:00 a.m.
On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification.
The Defendant's opposition to the motion is currently due on Nov.
21, 2024.
Twitter was an American social media company based in San
Francisco, California, which operated and was named for its
flagship social media network prior to its rebrand as X.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 6, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q6jaLz at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
Roshni C. Kapoor, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
Telephone: (415) 442-1000
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
roshni.kapoor@morganlewis.com
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Decertifies "Do Not Call" Class in Samson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order decertifying
the "do not call" class and withdrawing pending motion to
decertify:
1. On October 13, 2023, the Court in this case certified two
classes:
Wrong Number Class
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
Jan.
9, 2015, and Jan. 9, 2019, received a non-emergency telephone
call(s) placed using either the Avaya Pro Contact or LiveVox
IVR
dialing systems from the Medicare and Retirement Non-Licensed
Retention Team, the Community and State National Retention Team
or
the Medicare and Retirement Collections Team, to a cellular
phone
through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and who,
according to Defendant's records, was not a UnitedHealthcare
member at the time of the call."
Do Not Call Class
"All persons residing within the United States who, between
Jan. 9, 2015, and January 9, 2019, received a non-emergency
telephone call(s) placed using either the Avaya Pro Contact or
LiveVox IVR dialing systems from the Medicare and Retirement
Non-
Licensed Retention Team, the Community and State National
Retention Team or the Medicare and Retirement Collections Team,
to
a cellular phone through the use of an artificial or
prerecorded
voice, and whose telephone number, according to Defendant's
records, was flagged or documented as "do not call," "final do
not
contact" or otherwise recorded as a number not to be called."
United 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=ss0JKw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
Jordan M. Sartell, Esq.
FRANCIS MAILMAN SOUMILAS, P.C.
1600 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
jsartell@consumerlawfirm.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB & JOHNS LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Barbara J. Duffy, Esq.
Devon McCurdy, Esq.
Erika O'Sullivan, Esq.
Erin M. Wilson, Esq.
LANE POWELL PC
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98111-9402
Telephone: (206) 223-7944
E-mail: duffyb@lanepowell.com
mccurdyd@lanepowell.com
osullivane@lanepowell.com
wilsonem@lanepowell.com
- and -
Maxwell V. Pritt, Esq.
Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
Jessica Mugler, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 293-6800
1401 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 237-2727
E-mail: mpritt@bsfllp.com
skaplan@bsfllp.com
jmugler@bsfllp.com
lchauncey@bsfllp.com
- and -
Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 54th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 229-7000
E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com
US EXP TRUCKING: Akkoyun Seeks Proper Wages for Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
MAX DAVIS AKKOYUN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US EXP TRUCKING, INC. AND ORKUN
OZKAYMAK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11598 (N.D. Ill., November
11, 2024), arises out of Defendants' unlawful practice of
misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors and making
deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear
expenses which should have been properly borne by Defendant US
EXP.
The Plaintiff was hired by US EXP to perform deliveries in Illinois
and across the United States. Plaintiff worked for US EXP full
time, routinely working up to 70 hours a week. The Plaintiff did
not work anywhere else while working for US EXP. However, the
Plaintiff and other delivery drivers were classified as independent
contractors. As a result, they were not paid proper wages.
In addition, they were not minimum wage for all hours worked
because Defendants made unlawful deductions to their pay.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims for violations of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Headquartered in Northfield, IL, US EXP Trucking, Inc. operates as
an interstate freight carrier. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradley Manewith, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com
- and -
Harold Lichten, Esq.
Olena Savytska, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
osavytska@llrlaw.com
US PREMIUM BEEF: NBP Continues to Defend Brown Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Premium Beef LLC 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
National Beef Packing Company LLC (NBP) continues to defend itself
from Brown class suit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.
NBP is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Brown, et al. v. JBS USA Food Company et al. and filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
November 1, 2022.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied
except as to NBP's subsidiary, Iowa Premium.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 12, 2024. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants directly and through
industry wage surveys and a benchmarking service (i) fixed wages
and benefits, and (ii) exchanged information regarding compensation
and benefits in an effort to depress and stabilize wages and
benefits in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble monetary damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive relief
and the costs of the suit (including attorney fees).
NBP believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this
case, and if this proceeds to trial, intends to defend the case
vigorously; however, NBP has negotiated a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the employee wages and benefits matter.
The settlement has been submitted to the court for approval and NBP
has made an accrual for the potential settlement.
There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case
or the impact on the NBP's consolidated financial position, results
of operations and cash flows.
NBP is a party to various other lawsuits and claims arising out of
the operation of its business. Management of NBP believes the
ultimate resolution of such matters should not have a material
adverse effect on NBP's financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity.
U.S. Premium Beef, LLC operates an integrated cattle processing and
beef marketing enterprise based in Missouri.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC --
http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- is a beef processing company in the
United States. The company processes packages and delivers fresh
beef for sale to customers in the United States and international
markets. The products include boxed beef and beef by-products, such
as hides and offal. In addition, National Beef sells beef products
including branded boxed beef, case- ready beef, chilled and frozen
export beef and portion control beef. The company markets its
products to retailers, distributors, food service providers,
further processors, and the United States military. It has the
ability to process approximately 14,000 head per day in its beef
processing
facilities. The company reports in two business segments: Core Beef
and Other.
UVERAL MEAT: Faces Morales Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS MORALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UVERAL MEAT MARKET & GROCERY CORP., JAHN
CRUZ YNFANTE, MAYELIN CRUZ and JONATHAN VARGAS, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08609 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage
notice, and failure to provide wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around
January 2023 until in or around January 2024.
Uveral Meat Market & Grocery Corp. is a market owner and operator
located at 2558 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
VEROGEN INC: Curley Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KIRSTEN CURLEY, individually
and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v. VEROGEN, INC.,
Case No. 2024-CH-08282 (Filed Aug. 30, 2024), was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division on Oct. 4, 2024.
The Northern Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-09508 to the proceeding.
The suit alleges that the Defendant violated the Illinois Genetic
Information Privacy Act by failing "to obtain written authorization
from the Plaintiff or the members of the Class to disclose their
Genetic Information, as required by" Sections 30(a) and 35 of
GIPA.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class:
"All Illinois individuals who, during the applicable statute of
limitations, (i) had a Facebook account; and (ii) uploaded
their DNA to GEDmatch.com according to Defendant's records."
Verogen, Inc. operates as a biotech company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Myles McGuire, Esq.
David Gerbie, Esq.
Anrew Heldut, Esq.
Joseph M. Dunklin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
dgerbie@mcgpc.com
aheldut@mcgpc.com
jdunklin@mcgpc.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle Shamberg, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
111 W. Washington St., Ste. 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
kyle@lcllp.com
- and -
John M. Jagher, Esq.
FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kristine R. Argentine, Esq.
Paul J. Yovanic Jr., Esq.
Claire C. Kossmann, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
Chicago, IL 60606-6448
Telephone: (312) 460-5000
Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
E-mail: kargentine@seyfarth.com
pyovanic@seyfarth.com
ckossmann@seyfarth.com
VEXUS FIBER: Faces Lacrue Class Suit Over Bait-and-Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
COLIN LACRUE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. VEXUS FIBER, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-02842-L (N.D. Tex.,
Nov. 12, 2024) alleges that Vexus has routine bait-and-switch
scheme of deceiving consumers with fictitiously low-price
advertisements for its broadband internet service and then
automatically adding on a "Network Access Fee," which artificially
inflates the true cost of the Defendant's internet service.
The Defendant mischaracterizes its NAF as a valuable feature of
contracting with Vexus, in that the NAF "provides access to the
Vexus network and technology and enables us to continue to invest
in our network and infrastructure to deliver the best technology
and services to our customers," the suit contends.
Additionally, Vexus fails to adequately disclose the NAF to its
customers in its advertisements, and customers do not discover the
true cost of their internet service until after signing up or
sometimes, even later on when they receive their bill. By unfairly
obscuring the true cost of its internet service, Vexus deceives
consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly
disclose their true Internet Service costs, the Plaintiff avers.
As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members have been allegedly
injured by Defendant's deceptive and fraudulent practices.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
putative Class and seeks actual damages, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief to prevent the Defendant from continuing to
engage in its illegal practice.
Vexus offers internet, phone, and tv-streaming services for both
residential and business accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
Ryan H. Anderson, Esq.
THOMPSON LAW LLP
3300 Oak Lawn Avenue, 3rd Floor
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 755-7777
Facsimile: (214) 716-0116
E-mail: rthompson@triallawyers.com
randerson@triallawyers.com
- and -
Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq.
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
JENNINGS PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (317)-695-1712
E-mail: tyler@jenningspllc.com
chris@jenningspllc.com
- and -
Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
Sophia Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
sgold@kalielgold.com
WASATCH VALLEY: Under-reimburses Drivers, Brown Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BROWN, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WASATCH VALLEY PIZZA, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 8:24-cv-02380 (C.D. Cal., November 1, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant employs and/or employed
delivery drivers, including Plaintiff, who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to Defendant's
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
the Defendant used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that neither reimburse the drivers for their actual expenses, nor
at the IRS business mileage rate which is legally required and a
reasonable approximation of those expenses. This
under-reimbursement causes their wages to fall below the applicable
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, asserts the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
October 2023 to June 2024 as a delivery driver in Utah.
Wasatch Valley Pizza, LLC operates and/or operated numerous Pizza
Hut franchise stores in Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler Kobylinksi, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
633 W. 5th Street, Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 757-6072
Facsimile: (213) 757-6172
E-mail: tkobylinski@forthepeople.com
- and -
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Jolie N. Pavlos, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 418-2069
Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
jpavlos@forthepeople.com
WELLS FARGO: Adimora-Nweke et al. Sue Over Line of Credit Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Adimora-Nweke, et al., and similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Wells Fargo Bank N.A, Houdini Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-07856 (N.D. Cal., November 11, 2024) accuses the Defendants
of violating the Texas Consumer Protection Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in connection with the denial of Plaintiffs' business
line of credit application as well as asserts claims for
negligence, alleging that Wells Fargo had and breached its duty to
not misrepresent, falsely advertise, or discriminate against
customers, applicants, or consumers, in business line of credit &
banking services, etc.
The Plaintiffs were denied any reasonable explanation as to why his
business line of credit application was denied. The Plaintiffs also
assert that Wells Fargo's business services process, in regards to
business line of credit and its application process, is inherently
discriminatory, and allows for unjust, arbitrary, capricious, &
harmful deceptive trade practices, & harmful denial of equal
protection rights of citizens/subjects.
Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo is a global
financial services company, operating in every U.S. State and in 35
countries. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Esq.
ADIMORA LAW FIRM
3050 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 510
Houston, TX 77056
E-mail: ernest@adimoralaw.com
WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Pressley Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Pressley class suit in
New York State Supreme Court, New York County.
On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.
The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018.
Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in the case.
Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta Little as the
sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley Litigation. On July
12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and Counterclaim against
Little.
On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims.
On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition to the motions
for class certification and filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and Little,
and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.
By Order dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the
Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class
certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged
unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York
Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and
Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary
judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later
date. Currently the parties are engaging in merits discovery.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously
Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
ZENLEAD INC: Violates Right of Publicity, Masry Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MASRY, VARUN YADAV, EDWARD BRISCOE, JAMES HOLLAND, DON SILAS,
and MATTHEW BOLLINGER, individually and as the representatives of
classes of similarly-situated persons v. ZENLEADS, INC. d/b/a
Apollo.io, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 4:24-cv-07924 (N.D.
Cal., Nov. 12, 2024) seeks statutory damages, an injunction, and
other relief for violations of the Plaintiffs' and proposed classes
members' right of publicity, as protected by statutes in
California, Nevada, Indiana, and Alabama.
The Plaintiffs and the Classes have no relationship with Apollo.
More importantly, the Plaintiffs and the Classes never provided
Apollo with consent to use their identity to advertise
subscriptions to its platform. 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. In other
words, Apollo used Plaintiffs' and other Class Members' identities
for commercial purposes without their permission in violation of
the aforementioned state laws.
As of September 2024, Omar Masry's identity was used in Apollo's
platform. When his name is searched for on Apollo's platform, a
profile appears with his work history, email address, and a tab
with the option to view his mobile telephone number.
The Plaintiffs bring this Complaint seeking an order declaring that
Apollo's conduct violates their right of publicity as defined by
the various statutes, requiring that Apollo cease the unlawful
activities, awarding Plaintiffs and the proposed Classes statutory
damages in an amount prescribed by statute per violation or an
amount equal to actual damages/profits, whichever is greater, and
an award for punitive damages, if warranted, and awarding
attorneys' fees and costs where permitted by law.
Apollo provides an internet-based business intelligence platform to
assist sales and marketing professionals in connecting with
potential prospects and others who may be interested in its
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
268 Bush Street #4500
San Francisco, CA 94194
Telephone: (415) 901-0500
Facsimile: (415) 904-0504
E-mail: 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
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
wsolberg@andersonwanca.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 ***