/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241125.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, November 25, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 236
Headlines
21 MAIN NORTH: Fortner Labor Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Collectives
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Hamm Bid to Review Magistrate Judge Order Tossed
ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Boukadoum Securities Class Suit
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Myrick Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
ADVOCATE AURORA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges
ALL SECURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges
ALORICA INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify 401(K) Retirement Plan Class
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Settlement in Boone Suit Gets Final Nod
AMERICAN HONDA: Clemmens et al. Sue Over Paint Defect of Vehicles
AMPAM PARKS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Ramirez
ASPYR MEDIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Modified to Feb. 20, 2025
AT HOME STORES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 31, 2025
AVEDA CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims
AYVAZ PIZZA: Shamburg Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensation
BALDOR SPECIALTY: ONeil Appeals Ruling in Jimenez Suit to 2nd Cir.
BANK OF AMERICA: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Suit Seeks to Certify National Class
BASF CORPORATION: Parties Seek OK of Supplement to Settlement Deal
BELLE TIRE: Campbell Sues Over Private Data Breach
BEN ARMSTRONG: Crypto Coin Holders Sue Over Fraudulent Promotions
BIG FISH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Campos Modified to Dec. 23
BIOLAB INC: Judge Appoints 16 Lawyers for Class Action Litigation
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Drivers File Class Action Over Towing Practices
BITEZ 1 LLC: Faces Diaz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
BOAR'S HEAD: Settles Class Action Related to Listeria Outbreak
BOBBIE DEMUNCK: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 15, 2025
BOEING COMPANY: Claims Filing Deadline Set for December 31
BOTH INC: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 2 in Dail Suit
BOTH INC: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule
BOYNE USA: Bid for Decertification Tossed
BRIGHT PLANET: Most Sues Over "All Natural Ingredients" Labels
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
CAITLYN JENNER: Crypto Coin Investors Sue Over False Statements
CAITLYN JENNER: Faces Caluseru Suit Over Cryptocurrency Fraud
CAMBER ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Junk Rowe Suit Pending in TX Ct.
CENCORA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Suit Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval
CHADWICK DOTSON: Court Stays Discovery and Class Cert Deadlines
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: SCL Wins Class Certification Bid
COEUR MINING: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With SilverCrest
COMEY FAMILY: Coleman Sues Over Alleged Workplace Discrimination
CORAL REEF: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Court Stays Santiago Suit Until Dec. 9
DAVIDOFF OF GENEVA: Sumlin Alleges Website-Inaccessible Website
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: IBEW's Bid for Class Certification Granted
DEVILS LETTUCE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Brewer Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY: Fisher Suit Removed to C.D. California
ELITE AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baddley Alleges
EMS LINQ: Hansen Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Convenience Fee
ENGLEWOOD HOSPITALITY: Saraci Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
ENTERO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Journey Therapeutics
EVOLVE BANK: Liang Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
EZ FESTIVALS: Court Extends Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing
EZ FESTIVALS: Parties Seek OK of Briefing Schedule
FANEUIL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sandoval Alleges
FCA US: Snowman Suit Removed to S.D. California
FEDEX GROUND: Court Tosses Depina Bid to Certify Class
FLORIDA POWER: Sued for Damages Over Service Interruption
FORD MOTOR: Lessin Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Celano Class Suit
GEO GROUP: Gonzalez Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal
GOOGLE LLC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Addictive Video Games
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Temporary Sealing of Materials
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Account Holders
GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
HASBRO INC: Faces Class Action Securities Lawsuit
HASBRO INC: Wet Palm Sues Over Drop in Share Price
HDR GLOBAL: Fact Discovery in Lee Due Sept. 30, 2025
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks More Time to Oppose Strike Bid
HERTZ CORP: Court Vacates Case Management Conference in Maharaj
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Files Cross Appeals in Henkel Suit to 3rd Circuit
HONEY 490 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yoon Alleges
HORIZON ORGANIC: Wright Sues Over Mislabeled Cheese Products
HUMACYTE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors
ILLINOIS: Arcidiacono Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
INSTITUTE FOR THE INT'L: Galban Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
JANUS HENDERSON: Seeks to Restrict Class Cert Docs in Schissler
JARDACK REAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
K2 YH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shutthijit Alleges
KELLER WILLIAMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 17, 2025
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks to Certify Class Action
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks to File Unredacted Memorandum
LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 23, 2026
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Pierson Due Oct. 31, 2025
LATTER-DAY SAINTS: Plaintiffs Stress Deception in Tithing Lawsuit
LEAD DOG: Filing for Conditional Certification Due Feb. 4, 2025
LEAF HOME: Lirones Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 10, 2025
LENDING LOVE: Foster Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 3, 2025
MATCH GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Campton Class Suit Over Sweep Program
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schneider Says
MR. COOPER GROUP: Faces Cabezas Securities Suit in Texas Court
MY DEVICE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosario Alleges
NAPLETON'S RIVER: Morrison Balks at Retaliation, Unpaid Final Wages
NEW YORK TIMES: Isaacson Appeals Judgment in Moses Suit to 2nd Cir.
NEXTERA ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
NIMBUS MINING: Initial Case Management Conference Set for Dec. 3
NISSAN MOTORS: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Status
NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Loses Class Certification Bid
OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Morocho Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PACS GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 13
PAPPAS OG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zaragoza Alleges
PARAGON SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Andrews Says
PEAR HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Sarhadi Says
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sayona Mining
POWERPRO SERVICE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Such Alleges
PREGIS LLC: Appeals Court Order in Bazinett NYLL Suit to 2nd Cir.
PRODIGAL COMPANY: Court Dismisses Fiorito Federal Claims
PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Can't File Multiple Dispositive Bids, Ct. Says
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Gondola Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
PROPER HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Renewed Conditional Status Bid Tossed
REAL AUTO: Calle and Cardenas Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
REDWIRE CORP: Removes Yingling Suit to M.D. Florida
REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Class Cert. Bid Extended to Jan. 6, 2025
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Volpe Says
REVIVE SUPPLEMENTS: Crumwell Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
RHODE ISLAND: Fails to Offer Treatment for Medicaid-Eligible Youth
SACRAMENTO MOTORCARS: Faces Baes Class Suit in Cal. Super.
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Sargent Appeals Summary Judgment
SELENE FINANCE: Clerk Must Unseal Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law
SELENE FINANCE: Remaining Deadlines & Hearings Cancelled
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Dec. 19
SET FORTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Bradley Says
SEVENTH GENERATION: Butler Sues Over Laundry Detergents' False Ads
SPENCER GIFTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says
STAGHORN PETROLEUM: Class Settlement in Dinsmore Gets Initial Nod
SUBURBAN FURNITURE: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Montgomery Files False Ad Suit Over Sandwiches
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Seeks to Seal Portions of Memorandum
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Seeks to Seal Portions of Memorandum
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
TARGET CORP: Halley Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit
TAYLOR FRESH: Keene Sues Over E. Coli Contaminated Onions
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Status of OT Collective
THOMPSON COBURN: Duran Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, M.R. Alleges
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Salazar Says
TRELLA SOUVLAKI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clemente Alleges
TURQUOISE HILL: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 17, 2025
TYCO FIRE: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Deal Supplement
UNITED PARCEL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For Dec. 9
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Barnett Class Suit Over Safe Workplace
VERTEX AEROSPACE: Romero Suit Removed to E.D. California
WALMART INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Ivanoff
WALMART.COM USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 5, 2025
WELLS FARGO: Aguilar Auto Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
WHEELS ON THE BUS: Roman Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval
WHITE CAP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Lobdell Due July 3, 2025
WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Singh Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
*********
21 MAIN NORTH: Fortner Labor Suit Seeks to Certify 8 Collectives
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FORTNER, and
AUTUMN MCMANUS, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. 21 MAIN NORTH BEACH, LLC, a South
Carolina limited liability company, and LOVIN' OVEN CATERING OF
SUFFOLK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
4:24-cv-05893-JD (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order conditionally certifying the following collectives of
similarly situated servers and bartenders:
Server Tip Credit Notice Collective:
"All Servers who worked for the Defendants at any dining venue
owned and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina
during the previous three (3) years who were paid a direct cash
wage of less than minimum wage.
Bartender Tip Credit Notice Collective:
"All Bartenders who worked for the Defendants at any dining
venue
owned and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina
during the previous three (3) years who were paid a direct cash
wage of less than minimum wage.
Server Tip Credit Notice Overtime Collective:
"All Servers who worked for Defendants at any venue owned
and/or
operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina during the
previous three (3) years who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek.
Bartender Tip Credit Notice Overtime Collective:
"All Bartenders who worked for the Defendants at any venue
owned
and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina during
the
previous three (3) years who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek."
Server Tip Share Collective:
"All Servers who worked for Defendants at any dining venue
owned
and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina during
the
previous three (3) years who were required to surrender
portions
of their tips to cover cash register shortages or share any
portions of their tips with supervisors and/or managers."
Bartender Tip Share Collective:
"All Bartenders who worked for the Defendants at any dining
venue
owned and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina
during the previous three (3) years who were required to
surrender
portions of their tips to cover cash register shortages or
share
any portions of their tips with supervisors and/or managers."
Server Multiple Rate Overtime Collective:
"All Servers who worked for Defendants at any venue owned
and/or
operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina during the
previous three (3) years who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek where they were paid more than one hourly rate."
Bartender Multiple Rate Overtime Collective:
"All Bartenders who worked for the Defendants at any venue
owned
and/or operated at North Beach Resort in South Carolina during
the
previous three (3) years who worked more than 40 hours in any
workweek where they were paid more than one hourly rate."
The Plaintiffs request the Court to conditionally certify the case
under the FLSA and approve notice to all Servers and Bartenders
employed by Defendants during the previous 3 years.
Mr. Fortner worked for Defendants as a Bartender from approximately
2018 through May 2023.
21 Main owns and operates North Beach Resort located in North
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BGDJhT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
- and -
Christopher C. Mingledorff, Esq.
MINGLEDORFF & PATTERSON, LLC
245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 310, Box 13
Charleston, SC 29492
Telephone: (843) 471-1015
E-mail: chris@mptrial.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Hamm Bid to Review Magistrate Judge Order Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY HAMM, V. ACADIA
HEALTHCARE CO., INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-01515-SM-DPC (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Susie Morgan entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motion for review of order of Magistrate Judge and
affirming the order of the magistrate Judge.
The Court already has found that the Magistrate Judge's order
allowing Defendants leave to take the December 2023 opt-in
depositions was not clearly erroneous.
Having reviewed this Court's March 25, 2022 order allowing
Defendants to reopen Plaintiff Hamm's deposition "at Plaintiff's
expense," the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge was not clearly
erroneous in awarding Defendants attorneys' fees and costs related
to the re-opened deposition.
The case is a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case filed by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.
On May 22, 2020, Plaintiff Hamm filed a complaint against
Defendants as parent companies of the hospitals where she was
employed.
The Plaintiff brought her complaint as both a Rule 23 class action
and as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on
behalf of:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees involved
with patient care, including but not limited to nursing staff,
nurses, nursing assistants, nurse aides, technicians, clerks,
non-
exempt therapists, or other non-exempt employees with similar
job
duties employed at any facility operated by Defendant Acadia
Healthcare Company, Inc. during the time period three years
prior
to the filing of the original Complaint until resolution of
this
action."
The Plaintiff Hamm was a nurse supervisor at Red River Hospital in
Wichita Falls, Texas, for roughly eight years. She then served as a
nurse supervisor at River Place Behavioral Health in LaPlace,
Louisiana for an additional eight months.
Acadia Healthcare acquires and develops behavioral healthcare
facilities in the United States, United Kingdom, and Puerto Rico.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bfIev5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Boukadoum Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Acelyrin 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 Boukadoum securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
On November 15, 2023, a purported federal securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. An amended complaint was filed on
March 26, 2024 (Boukadoum v. Acelyrin, Inc. et al., No.
2:23-cv-09672-FMO-MAA), naming the company and current and former
executive officers and directors as defendants.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act
and Securities Act by misleading investors about the Phase 2b trial
of izokibep in HS.
The original complaint was filed following our announcement of the
week 16 results from the Part B portion of such Phase 2b trial.
The complaint seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs,
as well as such other and further relief as the court may deem just
and proper.
It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations
made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters
and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as
defendants. This lawsuit and any other potential lawsuits are
subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and
disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors.
The outcome of this lawsuit is necessarily uncertain.
The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the
defense against this and any other related lawsuits and the Company
may not prevail.
The Company currently is not able to estimate the possible loss to
the Company from this lawsuit, as this lawsuit is currently at an
early stage, and such amounts could be material to the Company’s
financial statements even if the Company prevails in the defense
against this lawsuit.
The Company cannot be certain how long it may take to resolve this
lawsuit or the possible amount of any damages that the Company may
be required to pay.
The Company does not consider any payment to be probable or
reasonably estimable and has not accrued for any potential
liability relating to this lawsuit.
ACELYRIN, Inc. operates as a biopharma company. The Company
provides life-changing new treatment options by identifying,
acquiring, and accelerating development and commercialization of
promising drug candidates. ACELYRIN serves patients in the United
States. [BN]
ADAPTHEALTH LLC: Myrick Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DILLON MYRICK, v.
ADAPTHEALTH LLC; HOME MEDICAL EXPRESS, INC. Case No. (E.D. Tex.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the
deadline for him to file his reply in support of class
certification and granting any further relief to which Plaintiff
may be entitled in equity or at law.
The Plaintiff’s current deadline to file a reply in support of
his Motion for Class Certification [is November 8, 2024.
As the Defendants' motion for leave to file excess pages in
response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification indicates,
"the factual issues relevant to class certification are complex and
require a close and careful discussion both of the facts and the
parties’ respective expert reports."
In addition, the responsive briefing on Plaintiff’s class
certification motion encompasses both substantive argument as to
the propriety of class certification, as well as a procedural
component as to the appropriateness of considering class
certification in this matter.
The Plaintiff would be prejudiced if he is forced to respond to the
lengthy arguments proposed by Defendants in such a short time
period. Defendant is unopposed to this requested extension.
AdaptHealth operates as a full-service home medical equipment
company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqpQSR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
Alexander G. Kykta, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
leigh@ellzeylaw.com
alex@ellzeylaw.com
ADVOCATE AURORA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wright Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BIONCA WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ADVOCATE AURORA HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-11690 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 13, 2024) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Wright was employed by the Defendant as a certified
nursing assistant.
Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. provides health care services. The
Company offers gynecological, dental, pediatric, adult, and
geriatric care, as well as nutrition, health education, and
intervention programs, and family planning. [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, LLP
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
ALL SECURE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Turner Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TURNER; DUSTIN HARVILLE; DAMEON DUDLEY; JEFFREY GORE;
LASHUNDA THOMAS; and JOSEPH VENTRINI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALL SECURE, LLC; and
GUYLON L. GREER, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02879 (W.D. Tenn.,
Nov. 13, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as security
officers.
All Secure, LLC is engaged in providing security guard services to
apartments and businesses in Shelby County, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William B. Ryan, Esq.
Janelle C. Osowski, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
Facsimile: (901) 278-3111
Email: billy@donatilaw.com
janelle@donatilaw.com
ALORICA INC: Munoz Seeks to Certify 401(K) Retirement Plan Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ, and MELISSA
OLSEN, individually and as representatives of a Putative Class of
Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of the ALORICA 401(K)
RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA, INC.; ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN
COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSHICK; JOYCE TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HYUN; ELIZABETH
LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE;
DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Jan. 7, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(A) and (B), will move this Court to:
(a) certify the Class of all participants in or beneficiaries of
the Alorica 401(K) Retirement Plan from Oct. 11, 2016,
through
Dec. 31, 2022, excluding Defendants and members of the
Defendant Boards and Committees;
(b) appoint Christina Humphrey Law, P.C. and Tower Legal Group,
P.C. as class counsel; and
(c) appoint Aaron Munoz and Melissa Olsen as Class
Representatives.
Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions. The
Company supports the world's respected brands with the best talent
and resources.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5zOced at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 11335
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
James A. Clark, Esq.
Renee P. Ortega, Esq.
TOWER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
Gold Express Drive, Ste. 105
Gold River, CA 95670
Telephone: (916) 361-6009
Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com
renee.parras@towerlegalgroup.com
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Class Settlement in Boone Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEATHER BOONE, et al., v.
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00241-KES-BAM (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Barbara McAuliffe entered an order granting
the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement.
1. Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement is granted.
2. The Court finally approves the settlement of this class
action
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
finds that the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement, and the
Gross Settlement Fund of $5,500,000.00 are fair, reasonable,
and
adequate in all respects pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. The Court finds that, for settlement purposes only, the
Settlement Class meets the requirements for certification
under
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that: (1)
the
Class is ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of all
members of the Class is impracticable; (2) there are common
questions of law and fact, and the questions of law and fact
common to the Class predominate; (3) Plaintiffs’ claims are
typical of the claims of the members of the Class; (4)
Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests
of
the members of the Class; and (5) a class action is superior
to
other available methods for the efficient adjudication of the
controversy.
4. Certification of the Settlement Class is granted, and the
Court
certifies the following Settlement Class for settlement
purposes
only:
"All current and former non-exempt employees of Amazon.com
Services, LLC in California who underwent one or more
COVID-19
temperature screenings during the period of April 1, 2020
through July 17, 2021 for individuals who did not work at the
facility known as OAK4 in Tracy, California, or the period of
April 1, 2020 through Feb. 23, 2022 for those individuals who
worked at the facility known as OAK4 in Tracy,
California.”
5. The PAGA award of $100,000.00 from the Gross Settlement Fund,
which includes payment of $7,500.00 to California’s Labor
and
Workforce Development Agency and the remainder distributed to
aggrieved employees, is APPROVED. The Settlement
Administrator
shall issue the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
Payment
directly to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the Funding
Date.
6. Settlement Administration costs in the amount of $392,341.00
to
be paid from the Gross Settlement Fund to Rust Consulting,
Inc.
are approved.
7. Plaintiffs' motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class
Representative Enhancement Payments (Doc.113) is granted.
8. Class Counsel's request for approval of attorneys' fees in
the
amount of $1,833,333.33 or 1/3 of the Gross Settlement Fund
is
granted. The Settlement Administrator shall issue payment to
Class Counsel within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the
Funding Date.
9. Class Counsel's request for approval of litigation costs in
the
amount of $69,881.64 is granted. The Settlement Administrator
shall issue payment to Class Counsel within twenty-one (21)
calendar days of the Funding Date.
10. The request for Class Representative Enhancement Payments in
the
total amount of $30,000.00 is granted, allocated as follows:
$10,000.00 to Plaintiff Heather Boone, $10,000.00 to
Plaintiff
Roxanne Rivera, and $10,000 to Plaintiff Cristian Barrera.
The
Settlement Administrator shall issue payment to within
twenty-
one (21) calendar days of the Funding Date.
Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1z46pi at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN HONDA: Clemmens et al. Sue Over Paint Defect of Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIM CLEMMENS, TERRI HERNANDEZ, and MARIE TOUSSAINT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-09728 (C.D. Cal., November 12, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to disclose and active concealment of the paint
of defect of its certain vehicles.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated owners and lessees who purchased or
leased the following vehicles in all model years from 2013 to the
present: The Acura MDX in White Diamond Pearl paint (NH-603P); The
Honda Odyssey in White Diamond Pearl paint (NH-603P) or Taffeta
White paint (NH-578); The Honda Pilot in Taffeta White paint (Paint
Code NH-578); The Honda Fit in White Orchid Pearl or Bellanova
White paint (Paint Code NH-788P); and The Honda HR-V in White
Orchid Pearl or Bellanova White paint (Paint Code NH-788P).
Allegedly, Honda's warranties and extended warranties failed to
provide an adequate remedy to the Class because the warranties: (1)
were provided without adequate notice to Class Vehicle owners whose
latent paint defect had Vehicles; (3) provided no relief to owners
and lessees of Class Vehicles' whose paint defect had not visibly
manifested; (4) were arbitrarily and improperly honored; and (5)
and the repairs provided were inadequate, did not remediate the
paint defect, and did not restore the Class Vehicles to their
bargained-for value. Moreover, with the current expiration of its
inadequate warranty remedies, Honda has refused, and continues to
refuse, to provide repairs or any other meaningful remedy to those
who have suffered economic harm because of the paint defect, says
the suit.
American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a wholly owned by Honda Motor
Company, Ltd, a Japanese automobile manufacturer. The company is
responsible for designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing,
selling, and servicing Acura and Honda vehicles in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON LLP
28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 342-7442
Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
E-mail: dkeller@kfjlegal.com
- and -
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
Paul V. Sweeny, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
paul@sfclasslaw.com
AMPAM PARKS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Ramirez
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, et al.,
v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order extending their time to respond to Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification from Nov. 14, 2024, to March 6,
2025, and adjusting the hearing date on that motion from Dec. 5,
2024, to April 24, 2025.
The Defendants seek this relief to allow for sufficient
class-certification-related discovery and the potential narrowing
of claims as a result of Defendants' forthcoming motions to
dismiss. The Defendants sought Plaintiffs' consent to the requested
relief, but the Plaintiffs did not respond.
The Defendants submit that good cause exists for the requested
relief, and that they have acted with due diligence in the conduct
of this matter.
On December 28, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a putative class
action complaint in the Southern District of California on behalf
of a different named plaintiff
Defendants have been fully engaged in responding to Plaintiffs'
extensive discovery requests, all while the newly-added Defendants
were still arranging for representation, while no case schedule has
been established, and while no Defendant has filed a responsive
pleading to the operative complaint. Defendants have acted with due
diligence throughout this matter.
AMPAM provides mechanical contracting services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tyg13J at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lars C. Golumbic, Esq.
Sarah M. Adams, Esq.
Shaun A. Gates, Esq.
Lawrence A. Brett, Esq.
GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED
1701 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 861-6615
Facsimile: (202) 659-4503
E-mail: lgolumbic@groom.com
sadams@groom.com
sgates@groom.com
lbrett@groom.com
- and -
Jeff S. Hood, Esq.
Sean M. Sullivan, Esq.
Emily M. Marsh, Esq.
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES &
SAVITCH LLP
12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 720-6300
E-mail: jeff.hood@procopio.com
sean.sullivan@procopio.com
emily.marsh@procopio.com
- and -
Julian Andre, Esq.
J. Christian Nemeth, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 4500
Miami, FL 33131-4336
Telephone: (305) 358-3500
Facsimile: (305) 347-6500
E-mail: jcnemeth@mwe.com
jandre@mwe.com
ASPYR MEDIA: Class Cert Bid Filing Date Modified to Feb. 20, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH
AFILANI, JACOB ALVA-MELVILLE, MICAIAH, FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA, JARED
HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB
MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE
PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, BRIAN
WALSH, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC.; and Does 1-5, Case No.
8:23-cv-01220-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter
entered an order modifying pretrial deadlines and trial as
follows:
Event Date
Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Motions July 24, 2025
in Limine:
Last Date to File Motion for Class Feb. 20, 2025
Certification:
Last Date to File Opposition to Motion Mar. 20, 2025
for Class Certification:
Last Date to File Reply in Support of Apr. 17, 2025
Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: May 8, 2025
Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Aug. 26, 2024
Pleadings /Add Parties
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Dec. 26, 2024
Expert Disclosure (Initial): Jan. 16, 2025
Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RetF1I at no extra
charge.[CC]
AT HOME STORES: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 31, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINA MALDONADO,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. AT
HOME STORES LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 8:24-cv-01020-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fred Slaughter entered an order modifying and setting
class certification discovery cut-off, briefing and hearing
schedule:
Event Date
Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on Nov. 20, 2025
Motions in Limine:
Discovery Deadline for Issues Related to Jan. 25, 2025
Class Certification:
Last Date to File Motion for Class Jan. 31, 2025
Certification:
Last Date to File Opposition to Motion for Feb. 28, 2025
Class Certification:
Last Date to File Reply in Support of Motion Mar. 21, 2025
for Class Certification:
In-Person Hearing on Motion for Class May 1, 2025
Certification:
Last Date to Hear Motions Aug. 28, 2025
Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference: Sept. 11,
2025
At Home operates as a home furnishing store.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CSD5ev at no extra
charge.[CC]
AVEDA CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aveda Corporation, Case No. 0:24-cv-04186 (D. Minn.,
Nov. 13, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Website (www.aveda.com)
is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who
have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory
mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and
services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
its implementing regulations, as well as the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
As a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience visiting the
Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an
investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found the
Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny
screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important
Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become,
and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4
(2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat.
section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29,
subd. 4 (2023).
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
Aveda offers hair and body products for sale including, skin and
body care, cosmetics, perfume, hair color and hair care products,
and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
AYVAZ PIZZA: Shamburg Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chandler Shamburg, Debralyn Duke, Crystal Sandle, Nolan Wright,
Mario Shivers, Marvin Alexander, and Jacob Tafoya, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated v. Ayvaz Pizza, LLC;
Shoukat Dhanani; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No.
5:24-cv-00098-JHY-JCH (W.D. Va., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought seeking
appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on
Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiffs with minimum
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and in
accordance with the state wage and common laws of Texas, Georgia,
Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Virginia.
Because Defendants paid their drivers a gross hourly wage at
precisely, or at least very close to, the applicable minimum wage,
and because the delivery drivers incurred unreimbursed automobile
expenses, the delivery drivers "kicked back" to Defendants an
amount sufficient to cause minimum wage violations. The Defendants
have willfully failed to pay federal and state minimum wage to
Plaintiffs and similarly situated delivery drivers at the Ayvaz
Pizza Hut Franchise Stores and have been unjustly enriched by the
delivery drivers' incurring automobile expenses for their benefit,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are delivery drivers who have worked at the
Defendants' Ayvaz Pizza Hut Franchise Stores.
The Defendants have operated the Ayvaz Pizza Hut Franchise Stores
Since fall 2021.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Biller, Esq.
Andrew Kimble, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLER LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd, Suite 515
Phone: 513-202-0710
Email: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
- and -
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq.
Monica L. Mroz, Esq.
L. Leigh Rhoads, Esq.
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW
4227 Colonial Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24018
Phone: (540) 283-0802
Phone: 540-283-0802
Email: rittany@vaemployment.law
monica@vaemployment.law
leigh@vaemployment.law
BALDOR SPECIALTY: ONeil Appeals Ruling in Jimenez Suit to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE A. DIAZ ONEIL, interested party, is taking an appeal from a
court order in the lawsuit entitled Eduardo Antonio Jimenez Del
Rosario, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-3580, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to protect the
Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive data following a
data breach on its network systems.
On March 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
On April 8, 2024, this Court held oral argument on that Motion and
requested certain modifications to the Settlement Agreement.
On April 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their supplemental
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement, which amended the class definition and the process for
claim dispute resolution in the Settlement Agreement, the notices
and claim form, and the proposed order granting preliminary
approval.
On April 22, 2024, this Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement but signed and entered the proposed order from the
original motion. The amended notices were sent to the class. To fix
this clerical error, on July 9, 2024, this Court vacated the April
22 preliminary approval order, and entered the July 9 amended
preliminary approval order.
On July 24, 2024, the Court entered a corrective preliminary
approval order to correct the class definition in the April 22
order.
On Sept. 4, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered an amended
final approval order.
The appellate case is captioned Jimenez Del Rosario v. Baldor
Specialty Foods, Inc., Case No. 24-2897, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 5, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees EDUARDO ANTONIO JIMENEZ DEL ROSARIO, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Defendant-Appellee BALDOR SPECIALTY FOODS, INC. is represented by:
Todd Rosenbaum, Esq.
MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO P.C.
919 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Interested Party-Appellant JAMIE A. DIAZ ONEIL appears pro se.
BANK OF AMERICA: Ramirez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, and JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 29, 2025,
will move for class certification before the Honorable Yvonne
Gonzales Rogers.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court:
(1) certify the following Classes pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Nationwide Class (represented by Plaintiffs Aldana and
Hobson):
"All BofA consumer checking accountholders in the United
States
who, from Sept. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, were charged
overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees by BofA after BofA
promised to consider waiving such fees due to the pandemic,
attempted to seek a refund, and did not receive a refund for
such fees."
California Subclass (represented by Plaintiff Aldana):
"All BofA consumer checking accountholders in California
who,
from Sept. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, were charged
overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees by BofA after BofA
promised to consider waiving such fees due to the pandemic,
attempted to seek a refund, and did not receive a refund for
such fees."
New Jersey Subclass (represented by Plaintiff Hobson):
"All BofA consumer checking accountholders in New Jersey
who,
from Sept. 1, 2020 through June 30, 2022, were charged
overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees by BofA after BofA
promised to consider waiving such fees due to the pandemic,
attempted to seek a refund, and did not receive a refund for
such fees."
(2) appoint Plaintiffs Janet Hobson and Mynor Villatoro Aldana
to
serve as representatives of the Nationwide Class;
(3) appoint Plaintiff Mynor Villatoro Aldana to serve as
representative of the California Subclass;
(4) appoint Plaintiff Janet Hobson to serve as representative of
the New Jersey Subclass; and
(5) appoint Andrea R. Gold, Hassan A. Zavareei, Glenn E.
Chappell,
and Cort T. Carlson of Tycko & Zavareei LLP to serve as
Class
Counsel for the Classes.
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, online banking, and mortgage.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PihSAT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
Cort T. Carlson, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
gchappell@tzlegal.com
ccarlson@tzlegal.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Schertzer Suit Seeks to Certify National Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN SCHERTZER, MEAGAN
HICKS, BRITTANY COVELL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., CARDTRONICS, INC.,
FCTI, INC., CASH DEPOT, LTD., and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:19-cv-00264-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Feb. 7, 2025,
at 1:30 p.m., will move for an order on behalf of herself and the
proposed class for class certification pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b).
The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following national Class
pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3):
BofA-FCTI Class
"All Bank of America, N.A., checking account holders in the
United
States who were assessed more than one out-of-network balance
inquiry fee during the same visit to a FCTI, Inc.-owned ATM
located in a 7-Eleven store from May 1, 2018, to Nov. 16,
2021."
Bank of America offers saving and current account, housing and auto
loans, online banking, and mortgage.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QYxQpd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
(Eddie) Jae K. Kim, Esq.
Tiffine E. Malamphy, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-1850
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
ekim@lcllp.com
tiffine@lcllp.com
BASF CORPORATION: Parties Seek OK of Supplement to Settlement Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-RMG (D.S.C.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order:
(i) accepting the Joint Interpretive Guidance as a supplement
to
the Settlement Agreements for Water Systems, and
(ii) amending Section VII of the Preliminary Approval Orders.
On April 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement, for Certification of Settlement Class
and for Permission to Disseminate Class Notice and the Tyco
Settlement Agreement.
On June 13, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Tyco Settlement Agreement, as revised.
On July 3, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the BASF
Settlement Agreement, as revised.
The Settlement Agreements for Water Systems specifies, among other
things, a process for requesting exclusion from the Settlement, as
well as a deadline for withdrawing any such request.
BASF Corporation operates as a chemical company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vONedP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212)-566-7500
Facsimile: (212)-566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
1301 Avenue Of The Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212)-397-1000
Facsimile: (646)-843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9159
Facsimile: (843) 216-9290
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5547
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: jpetrosinelli@wc.com
- and -
Michael A. Olsen, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-7120
Facsimile: (312) 706-8742
E-mail: molsen@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Brian Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
David E. Dukes, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 255-9451
Facsimile: (803) 256-7500
E-mail: david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com
BELLE TIRE: Campbell Sues Over Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BELLE TIRE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-12995-RJW-KGA (E.D. Mich., November 12, 2024) arises out of
a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the personally
identifiable information suffered by Belle Tire.
On June 11, 2024, an unknown and unauthorized criminal actor gained
access to Belle Tire's network and exfiltrated, at a minimum, name,
address, date of birth, Social Security number and/or driver's
license. Moreover, Belle Tire's data breach notification letter has
deficiencies that exacerbate the circumstances for victims of the
data breach. Belle Tire waited over four months to notice Plaintiff
and Class members of the data breach. Belle Tire failed to state
whether it was able to contain or end the cybersecurity threat,
leaving victims to fear whether the PII that Belle Tire continues
to maintain is secure. Belle Tire's letter also failed to state how
the breach itself occurred. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Belle Tire's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, and
unjust enrichment.
Belle Tire Distributors, Inc. is a tire and auto service company
headquartered in Allen Park, MI. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
BEN ARMSTRONG: Crypto Coin Holders Sue Over Fraudulent Promotions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Shittu of Cryptonews.com reports that Ben Armstrong, known
as BitBoy, faces a class-action lawsuit from $BEN coin holders
alleging fraudulent promotions, claiming he misled investors about
the token's potential returns, resulting in significant financial
losses.
Ben Armstrong, widely known as "BitBoy Crypto," and several
associates are facing a class-action lawsuit from American $BEN
coin holders alleging fraudulent activities.
A group of investors filed the lawsuit, naming Armstrong, Ashley
(Cassie), and others as co-conspirators.
Crypto YouTuber BitBoy Faces Legal Heat Over $BEN Coin Promotions
-- Did He Mislead Investors?
The plaintiffs claim that Armstrong and his team promoted the token
with promises of substantial returns, only for many of these
investments to result in significant losses.
The accusations extend to his former collaborators, including
individuals tied to BenCoin ATMs and influencers like
Ajwritescrypto and JChainsX.
The lawsuit is bolstered by the claimants' assurance that they have
preserved evidence to substantiate their allegations.
This legal action follows the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC) 's ongoing investigation into fraudulent activities
involving 15 cryptocurrencies, including $BEN.
On August 3, the CFTC subpoenaed Hit Network, a media company
formerly associated with Armstrong, to probe trading activities and
wallet connections related to these tokens.
The investigation has spotlighted Armstrong's role in promoting
$BEN and other tokens at Hit Network.
Armstrong has admitted to accepting payments for token promotions,
some of which were scams. However, he insists that these
endorsements were unintentional.
The $BEN token, launched on May 5, 2023, by an influencer known as
ben.eth, gained traction after Armstrong publicly endorsed it.
He later took on the CEO role before exiting the project on June 5.
Armstrong's involvement with $BEN reportedly created friction
within Hit Network, contributing to his removal as host in August
2023.
Armstrong's departure from Hit Network came amid allegations of
substance abuse, which he has partially acknowledged, admitting to
the use of steroids and diet pills but denying harder substances.
His exit also involved a legal dispute over a Lamborghini with a
former business partner, which led to his arrest.
Armstrong remains embroiled in multiple legal battles, including
disputes with Hit Network over his ouster.
His promotion of $BEN and other tokens and the CFTC investigation
have amplified scrutiny of his crypto-related activities.
Armstrong Apologizes for Legal Drama with Atozy -- Is His
Reputation at Stake?
Ben Armstrong recently filed and then dropped a defamation lawsuit
against fellow influencer Erling 'Atozy' Mengshoel.
Armstrong apologized during a livestream, stating that he would
"100%" drop the case and regretted the public attention it had
garnered.
He explained that he had wanted to resolve the matter privately,
referencing a previous confidential lawsuit that was settled to his
satisfaction. [GN]
The defamation suit, filed on August 12, stemmed from a November
2021 video in which Atozy criticized Armstrong.
In the video, he calls him "a shady dirtbag" and accuses him of
misleading his audience with poor financial advice.
Atozy also criticized Armstrong for promoting the failing Pamp
token. Armstrong claimed he suffered losses exceeding $75,000 and
sought damages for defamation.
Despite the public attention the case received, Armstrong admitted
that his growing profile had made it difficult to keep legal
matters private.
He acknowledged Atozy as the "winner" in the situation.
This incident isn't the first time Armstrong has attempted legal
action. He also planned a class-action lawsuit against Celsius
after its bankruptcy but dropped it after realizing his role in
promoting the platform. [GN]
BIG FISH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Campos Modified to Dec. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATHAN CAMPOS and JANET
GARVEY, v. BIG FISH GAMES INC., a Washington corporation, et al.
Case No. 2:22-cv-01806-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo
Martinez entered an order granting stipulated motion to modify case
schedule.
The Court enters the following schedule:
1. By no later than Dec. 2, 2024, Defendants shall grant Mr.
Khan
access to confidential materials as provided in the
Stipulated
Amendment to Protective Order.
2. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class
certification, currently set for Nov. 13, 2024, is now Dec.
23,
2024.
3. Defendants shall take any deposition of Mr. Khan by Feb. 7,
2025. Mr. Khan shall make himself available for deposition
during normal working hours Pacific Time.
4. The deadline for the Defendants to file their opposition to
the
motion for class certification, currently set for Dec. 18,
2024,
is now March 3, 2025.
5. Plaintiffs shall take any deposition of any experts that
Defendants disclose in connection with their opposition by
March
14, 2025.
6. The deadline for Plaintiffs to file their reply in support of
their motion for class certification, currently set for Jan.
8,
2025, is now March 24, 2025.
Big Fish is a casual game company based in Seattle.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RWdXRc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vanessa Soriano Power, Esq.
Alissa N. Harris, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101-4109
Telephone: (206) 386-7553
Facsimile: (206) 386-7500
E-mail: vanessa.power@stoel.com
ali.harris@stoel.com
- and -
Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
Lindsey Barnhart, Esq.
Hannah Nelson, Esq.
Kevin Hoogstraten, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
3000 El Camino Real
5 Palo Alto Square
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
E-mail: ehenn@cov.com
lbarnhart@cov.com
hnelson@cov.com
khoogstraten@cov.com
BIOLAB INC: Judge Appoints 16 Lawyers for Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedra Mayfield reports that after consolidating 18 class action
complaints surrounding a chemical fire at a BioLab plant in
Georgia, a federal judge has appointed 16 attorneys from separate
firms in Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Tennessee,
and Puerto Rico as interim class counsel and committee members.
What You Need to Know
-- Federal judge appoints counsel following consolidation of
BioLab class actions linked to Sept. 29 chemical fire at Conyers,
Georgia plant.
-- U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty of the Northern District
of Georgia appointed 16 attorneys from separate firms.
-- Appointees will serve as interim co-lead class counsel, liaison
counsel, community liaison counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee
members and business class committee members.
Class action litigation against Bio-Lab Inc. and KIK Custom
Products Inc. is advancing following a Sept. 29 fire at a plant in
Conyers, Georgia, that resulted in the release of hazardous
chemicals and the evacuation of more than 17,000 residents.
After consolidating 18 class action complaints, a federal judge has
greenlit the litigation's advancement by appointing interim class
counsel and committee members. The 16 appointed attorneys hail from
separate firms in Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New York,
Tennessee and Puerto Rico.
Meet the Counsel
On Friday, Nov. 15, U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty of the
Northern District of Georgia appointed attorneys from more than a
dozen firms to three interim counsel cohorts and two committees
after reviewing submtited motions for appointment.
In an order issued Nov. 15, Geraghty noted that she'd "carefully
reviewed Plaintiffs' counsel's applications for appointment as
interim class counsel," but that "[g]iven the sheer abundance of
skilled attorneys who [sought] appointment," she opted to appoint
"attorneys and law firms [that] presented the strongest
applications to represent the interests of the putative class on an
interim basis."
Geraghty selected Atlanta litigators Jason J. Carter of Bondurant
Mixson & Elmore and L. Chris Stewart of Stewart Miller Simmons
Trial Attorneys to join forces with Chiccago-based attorney Daniel
Rock Flynn of DiCello Levitt and Tampa-based litigator Jean S.
Martin of Morgan & Morgan as interim co-lead class counsel.
The federal judge also appointed J. Cameron Tribble of the Barnes
Law Group in Atlanta to serve as interim liaison counsel and
Decatur litigator M.J. Blakely of The Blakely Firm to serve as
interim community liaison counsel.
In addition to appointing counsel, Geraghty appointed the following
lawyers to serve as members on a pair of committees:
Interim Plaintiffs' Executive Committee
-- James Bilsborrow, Weitz & Luxenberg in New York, New York
-- Mark P. Chalos, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein in
Nashville, Tennessee
-- Gary Klinger, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman in
Chicago, Illinois
-- Robert S. Libman, Miner, Barnhill & Galland in Chicago,
Illinois
-- Edward Manzke, The Collins Law Firm in Naperville, Illinois
-- Roger Orlando, The Orlando Firm in Decatur, Georgia
-- Gerard Stranch, Stranch, Jennings & Garvey in Nashville,
Tennessee
-- Lynn Toops, Cohen & Malad in Indianapolis, Indiana
Interim Business Class Committee
-- Christopher L. Coffin, Coffin Law in San Juan, Puerto Rico
-- MaryBeth V. Gibson, Gibson Consumer Law Group in Atlanta,
Georgia
With counsel now appointed, preparations are underway for upcoming
status conferences set for every six weeks, according to Geraghty's
order.
"In advance of each status conference, Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Defendants' counsel shall meet and confer," the federal
judge ordered. "Unless otherwise ordered, Interim Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Defendants' counsel shall file a joint notice setting
out the proposed agenda and the parties' joint and/or respective
positions on agenda items no later than three business days prior
to each status conference." [GN]
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Drivers File Class Action Over Towing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Gould, writing for ABC News, reports that downtown towing
is so frustrating for drivers. Now a class action lawsuit, aims to
settle the score for drivers who feel they've been treated unfairly
in the city of Birmingham.
It's an issue we have spotlighted for years. Back in 2016 we found
no shortage of driver complaints about towing. Some said they
thought their vehicles were stolen. Others said they had paid or
the parking payment machines were broken.
Fast forward eight years and we found similar concerns on Second
Avenue North. "I think it's a commonly held concern this is
happening in an alarming rate," said Sam Marcrom. He called the
towing 'predatory.'
Marcrom explained he and his wife had paid to park on the app, but
his wife accidentally entered their tag number slightly wrong.
"They were unwilling to refund our money, even though we paid,"
said Marcrom. To get their vehicle back they had to pay $165 at the
tow lot.
Now a class action lawsuit for drivers who used the pay to park
lots is working through Jefferson County Court. Filings call the
two trucks 'modern day pirates' with 'mafia-like collection
practices.
"We believe we can stop this practice," remarked Attorney Michael
Parrish, Alabama Car Lawyers, LLC. He represents an elderly couple
who also got towed after a mistake entering their tag number. At
the tow lot they were required to sign additional terms which they
could not see in the dark to get their vehicle back.
The lawsuit claims the vehicles are held hostage, drivers are not
given information on how to file complaints with the city or
receipts.
TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE CITY:
Birmingham Department Of Transportation's main number 205-254-2450
Birmingham Police Department's Business Compliance Unit:
https://police.birminghamal.gov/business-compliance-unit/
Call or enter a request in the 311 System
"The city has revamped ordinances twice since 2013. Whether that is
working or not, it doesn't appear to be," said Parrish.
If you can prove you did pay, Parrish explains parking lot owners
can only charge half the tow fee. The lawsuit claims unjust
enrichment and violation of city ordinances among other things.
Named in the lawsuit: Parking Enforcement Systems which runs the
tow trucks, CRC2 which owns the lots and manager Robert Crook Jr.
Attorney Parrish hoping to hear from other drivers about their
experiences. He believes there maybe thousands of people unfairly
towed.
We reached out to attorneys for the companies involved and have not
heard back. [GN]
BITEZ 1 LLC: Faces Diaz Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ORLANDO DIAZ and JOSE MANUEL RAMOS MARTINEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BITEZ
1, LLC, BITEZ 2, LLC, BITEZ 3, LLC, BITEZ 4, LLC, QUAIS SIDIQI,
LAYTH MUSA MANSOUR, and HASIB IQBAL, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02018 (E.D. Va., November 12, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Virginia Overtime Wage Act,
the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Wage Payment Act, and
D.C. Wage Payment Act.
According to the complaint, each of the Plaintiffs routinely worked
more than 40 hours per week for which they were paid no overtime
premiums. For the overtime hours worked each week by each Plaintiff
in excess of 40, the Defendants paid only straight wages if any
wages. Accordingly, each Plaintiff is owed unpaid overtime wages in
the amount of one and a half times their regular wages, says the
suit.
Plaintiffs Diaz and Martinez were employed to work as dishwashers
and cooks for Defendants' restaurants in Virginia from March 2023
to September 1, 2024 and from July 1, 2024 to August 29, 2024,
respectively.
BITEZ 1, LLC operates as a restaurant doing business as
"Bitez."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & TERPAK, PLLC
7540A Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003
Telephone: (703) 256-1800
Facsimile: (703) 991-6116
E-mail: matt@sutterandterpak.com
BOAR'S HEAD: Settles Class Action Related to Listeria Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Oatman, writing for Meat+Poultry, reports that Boar's Head
has reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed by
consumers who claimed the company misled them with false
advertising by not disclosing that their products were contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs sent a letter on November 15,
notifying the court of the agreement reached. Details of the
settlement were not disclosed in the letter.
The counsel requested 60 days for the parties to finalize approval
of the settlement.
The suit was first filed in early August of this year. On behalf of
herself and Boar's Head customers nationwide, New York resident
Rita Torres filed the complaint.
The Listeria outbreak connected to Boar's Head ready-to-eat meat
and poultry products led to 10 deaths and 59 hospitalizations
across 19 states, according to the Centers for Disease and Control
Prevention (CDC).
Boar's Head initiated the recall of over 7 million lbs of RTE
products in July after the Maryland Department of Health notified
the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of a detection
of Listeria in a collected sample of Boar's Head products.
As a result of the outbreak, Boar's Head indefinitely closed its
Jarratt, Va., processing plant, where the recalled products were
manufactured. Additionally, the company formed a Food Safety
Council, made up of independent food experts to help guide the
company in its adoption of enhanced food safety programs. [GN]
BOBBIE DEMUNCK: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 15, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH HARRELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
BOBBIE JEAN DEMUNCK, Florida resident, Case No.
3:24-cv-00674-TJC-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy Corrigan
entered a case management and scheduling order and referral to
mediation:
Deadline for providing mandatory initial disclosures: Dec. 6,
2024
Deadline for disclosing expert reports:
Affirmative: May 6,
2025
Rebuttal: June 3,
2025
Deadline for completing discovery and filing July 1,
2025
motions to compel:
Deadline for moving for class certification: July 15,
2025
Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Aug. 12,
2025
motions:
Deadline for filing the joint final pretrial Feb. 12,
2026
statement and all other motions including
motions in limine:
Trial Term Begins: March 2,
2026
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CWMEUS at no extra
charge.[CC]
BOEING COMPANY: Claims Filing Deadline Set for December 31
----------------------------------------------------------
ISS Insights reports that the SEC has created a $201 million Fair
Fund (the "Fund") for purchasers of The Boeing Company ("Boeing" or
the "Company") common stock during the period between November 28,
2018, and October 17, 2019, inclusive (the "Relevant Period").
Boeing paid $200 million, and its former CEO (together with Boeing
the "Respondents") paid $1 million to create the Fund, resolving
cease-and-desist proceedings (the "Proceedings")[1] against the
Respondents by the SEC. The current deadline for investors to file
a claim is December 31, 2024 (which was extended from an earlier
deadline). Investors should assess whether they may have valid
claims from the Fund, and if so, should expeditiously file their
claims to best ensure recovery.
The Proceedings revolved around Boeing's new line of aircraft, the
737 MAX. Two of these planes notoriously crashed -- Lion Air flight
610 on October 29, 2018, and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 on March
10, 2019 -- killing all aboard each flight. Importantly, the SEC
determined that Respondents made materially misleading statements
to investors in Boeing's November 27, 2018, press release about the
Lion Air crash and in public statements in April 2019 following the
Ethiopian Airlines crash and ordered the cumulative payment of $201
million as a penalty.
The crashes also spawned multiple shareholder lawsuits, including a
putative securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Securities Case"),[2]
and a shareholder derivative case in Delaware Chancery Court (the
"Derivative Case"), which settled in 2022 for $237.5 million in
cash payment and corporate governance reforms, ranking it one of
the ten largest such settlements ever.[3] Furthermore, the U.S.
Department of Justice fined Boeing the massive sum of $2.5 billion
related to 737 MAX safety issues.
The underlying alleged facts of the 737 MAX 8 situation, are out
set out in great depth in the Securities Case, although the
Proceedings provides detailed facts as found by the SEC. Both are
informed by discovery of numerous internal documents from Boeing,
although documentary evidence in the Securities Case is heavily
redacted to the public.
As alleged by plaintiffs in the Securities Case, Boeing --
concerned about losing market share to Airbus SE ("Airbus") --
decided to rush to market the 737 MAX, its updated version of the
workhorse 737, putting pressure on employees to cut corners and
ignore safety warnings. The plaintiffs alleged that instead of
making structural changes to the aircraft, a new software system
called MCAS, that could take control of the plane and push its nose
down if it sensed that the plane was stalling, was added to
compensate for the MAX 737's larger but more fuel-efficient
engines, which risked causing the plane to pitch up and stall.
Boeing is alleged to have opted against making structural changes
to avoid significantly increasing the time to certify the aircraft
and requiring former 737 pilots to undertake costly simulator
training, a major selling point for Boeing. Crucially, the
plaintiffs alleged that the MCAS system malfunctioned and
erroneously determined stalls in both crashes, pushing both Lion
Air flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 into involuntary
steep dives that the pilots were unable to disengage from.
The gravamen of the allegations in the Securities Case is that
Boeing falsely represented to investors that the 737 MAX was safe
in the wake of the crashes when the truth was in fact the exact
opposite, because admitting the truth would result in additional
pilot training and updates to the MCAS system and thereby slow down
production and sale of the 737 MAX. The plaintiffs in the
Securities Case claim that investors were harmed when the truth
about the woeful 737 MAX safety problems was revealed over a series
of disclosures across 2019 and that Boeing's stock price declined
27% from its class period high to after the final alleged
corrective disclosure. On September 30, 2024, the court in the
Securities Case allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on a number of
alleged false statements but not others. The case had already been
in discovery previously, and with the decision on the latest
complaint, discovery has resumed. It is likely that a settlement
will be forthcoming for shareholders in this case, but it is
unclear whether years more of protracted litigation will first
ensue or not.
Boeing's share price closed below $140 in November 2024, while it
had closed as high as $440 days before the Ethiopian Airlines
crash.
The SEC Proceedings thus are about similar alleged conduct by the
Respondents regarding the safety issues regarding the 737 MAX. As
noted, the SEC determined that Respondents' statements on November
27, 2018, and in April 2019 were false and misleading and therefore
constituted violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the
Securities Act of 1933.[4] The SEC also cites documents, without
redaction, that it claims support its factual determinations. For
example, the SEC states that Boeing's internal Safety Review Board
had concluded that the unintended activation of the MCAS was an
"airplane safety issue" that required remediation and had
communicated this to Boeing's senior management on or about
November 15, 2018. Moreover, the SEC stated that on November 21st
2018, Boeing's communications team suggested removing any
discussion of the planned MCAS software redesign from the draft
press release. The SEC noted that the final press release did not
mention that Boeing had identified an ongoing safety issue or was
planning to redesign the MCAS software. Significantly, this was
more than three months before the Ethiopian Airlines crash. Claims
for the Fund must, if sent by mail, be posted by, and if sent
electronically, be received by December 31, 2024. Please be aware
that the documentation required by the SEC in Fair Fund claims is
more significant than is required in the claims process for private
securities class action settlements, such as requiring proof of
trade confirmations. Thus, the process can be quite onerous for
institutions that do not commonly file such claims, as some of
these documents may be difficult to source. So, be sure to allow
enough time to properly file all claims in advance of the deadline.
[GN]
BOTH INC: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 2 in Dail Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Adrian Dail, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Both, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Douglas Miller entered an order granting the Defendants
an extension of time to file their response to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification to Dec. 2, 2024, and for the
Plaintiffs to file their reply by Dec. 20, 2024.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8P9G8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
Craig J. Curwood, Esq.
Zev H. Antell, Esq.
Samantha Galina, Esq.
BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 648-4848
Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com
craig@butlercurwood.com
zev@butlercurwood.com
samantha@butlercurwood.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul DeCamp, Esq.
Kathleen Barrett, Esq.
EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1227 25th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 861-1819
Facsimile: (202) 861-3571
E-mail: pdecamp@ebglaw.com
kbarrett@ebglaw.com
- and -
Randy C. Sparks, Jr., Esq.
Catrina C. Waltz, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 1400
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 771-5700
Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
E-mail: rcsparks@kaufcan.com
ccwaltz@kaufcan.com
BOTH INC: Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing Schedule
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN DAIL, et al.
Individually and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, v.
BOTH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00276-JKW-DEM (E.D. Va.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order:
-- granting an extension of the briefing schedule on the motion
for
class certification, and
-- extending the deadline for the Defendants' response brief to
Dec.
2, 2024, and for Plaintiffs' reply brief to Dec. 20, 2024.
Both Inc is a restaurants company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MNId5C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul DeCamp, Esq.
Kathleen Barrett, Esq.
EPSTEIN, BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1227 25th Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 861-1819
Facsimile: (202) 861-3571
E-mail: pdecamp@ebglaw.com
kbarrett@ebglaw.com
- and -
Randy C. Sparks, Jr., Esq.
Catrina C. Waltz, Esq.
KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.
1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 1400
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 771-5700
Facsimile: (888) 360-9092
E-mail: rcsparks@kaufcan.com
ccwaltz@kaufcan.com
BOYNE USA: Bid for Decertification Tossed
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE ANDERSON, as
trustee for the LAWRENCE T. ANDERSON AND SUZANNE M. ANDERSON JOINT
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST; ROBERT AND NORA ERHART; and TJARDA CLAGETT,
v. BOYNE USA, INC.; BOYNE PROPERTIES, INC.; and SUMMIT HOTEL, LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00095-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Brian Morris
entered an order denying Defendants' motion for decertification.
Boyne has failed to show a compelling reason why the Court's
summary judgment order warrants revisiting of certification at this
late stage in the litigation.
The Court need not address Boyne's arguments that Plaintiffs'
claims fail typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a) and
that Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the Rule 23(b)(2) requirements
because declaratory relief cannot apply to the entire class.
The Court addressed these arguments in its original order granting
class certification on June 28, 2023. Nothing related to the
Court's order granting summary judgment to Boyne on Plaintiffs'
antitrust tying claims changes this analysis.
The Court certified the class on June 28, 2023. (Doc. 113.) The
Ninth Circuit denied Boyne's petition for permission to appeal the
class certification.
Boyne owns and operates mountain resorts.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nZySdW at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIGHT PLANET: Most Sues Over "All Natural Ingredients" Labels
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MOST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIGHT PLANET PET LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2024LA001335 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty., November 12, 2024) is an
action for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies against the Defendant for violations of
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act,
common law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
The suit is brought from the illegal actions of Defendants in
intentionally labeling their Better Bac'N products as containing
"All Natural Ingredients" when they contain synthetic citric acid
and coconut glycerin.
As a result of Defendant's fraudulent labeling, the Plaintiff and
the Class have been misled into purchasing products that did not
provide them with the benefit of the bargain they paid money for,
namely that the products would not contain artificial ingredients,
says the suit.
Bright Planet Pet LLC advertises, markets, sells, and distributes
pet products throughout Illinois and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
- and -
Steve G. Perry, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
707 Skokie Blvd., Suite 600
Northbrook, IL 60062
Telephone: (224) 218-0875
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: steven.perry@toddflaw.com
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMILIA KUENTZ and THOMAS
CARPENTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. CACI INTERNATIONAL, INC., CACI, INC. -
FEDERAL, CACI, LLC - COMMERCIAL, ABC COMPANIES 1 – 25 (UNKNOWN
CACI COMPANIES). Case No. 1:24-cv-02496-DLF (D.D.C.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting the Defendants'
response to the Plaintiffs' motion to enlarge time for filing
motion for class certification.
The Defendants submit this response to Plaintiffs Emilia Kuentz and
Thomas Carpenter's motion to enlarge time for filing motion for
class certification.
The Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs' motion and agree that
the schedule for class certification briefing should be set at the
Rule 26(f) conference.
CACI is an American multinational professional services and
information technology company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gDGDqq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Russell R. Bruch, Esq.
Bryan M. Killian, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2541
Telephone: (202) 739-5293
E-mail: russell.bruch@morganlewis.com
bryan.killian@morganlewis.com
CAITLYN JENNER: Crypto Coin Investors Sue Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
$JENNER between the time it was first offered for sale, and the
time a Class is notified of certification (the "Class Period"). A
class action lawsuit has already been filed.
SO WHAT: If you purchased $JENNER during the Class Period you may
be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket
fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the $JENNER class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31137 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for more
information. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, Defendant Caitlyn
Jenner offered and sold $JENNER by means of written and oral
communications which contained materially false and misleading
statements, and omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements not misleading, including but not limited to the
following: (1) misrepresentations regarding the potential
profitability, functionality, and value of $JENNER; (2) failing to
disclose the risks associated with investing in $JENNER, including
regulatory risks and potential lack of liquidity; (3) misleading
statements about the project's financial health, business
prospects, and future growth opportunities; (4) Jenner's and other
insiders' own holdings and financial interests in the enterprise;
and (5) false and misleading statements about getting $JENNER
listed on centralized cryptocurrency exchanges ("CEXs"). When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the $JENNER class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31137 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
CAITLYN JENNER: Faces Caluseru Suit Over Cryptocurrency Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
NAEEM AZAD and MIHAI CALUSERU, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. CAITLYN JENNER and
SOPHIA HUTCHINS, Case No. 2:24-cv-09768 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2024)
contends that Jenner has used her various public social media
accounts, which are followed by millions of people, as well as
other media outlets, such as podcasts and public statements, to
promote $JENNER to investors and to solicit their purchases,
ultimately defrauding the Plaintiffs and the Class.
Beginning on May 26, 2024, Jenner, aided by her business partner
and manager, Hutchins, allegedly orchestrated a scheme wherein she
offered and sold unregistered securities – the cryptocurrency,
$JENNER – and fraudulently solicited financially unsophisticated
investors throughout the United States and abroad to purchase the
unregistered securities, in violation of federal and state law.
$JENNER is a type of cryptocurrency known as a "memecoin."
Since commencing the scheme, Jenner has continuously,
systematically, directly, and repeatedly touted $JENNER's ability
to increase in value based on her managerial and entrepreneurial
efforts, thereby manipulating the market and overall valuation of
Jenner's own cryptocurrency, serving her own financial interests.
In fact, Jenner's primary purpose in creating $JENNER was to
cross-promote herself and her ventures, and to cultivate a
cryptocurrency brand uniquely associated with herself, which she
could easily manipulate, which she in fact did manipulate.
As a direct result of Jenner's fraudulent offer for sale and sale
of these unregistered securities, the Plaintiffs and the Class –
many of whom are retail investors and lack the technical and
financial sophistication necessary to have evaluated the risks
associated with their investment in $JENNER, and were denied the
information that would have been contained in the materials
required for the registration of $JENNER – have suffered
significant damages, the lawsuit asserts.
Plaintiff Azad first purchased $JENNER on the Solana blockchain on
May 26, 2024, and on the Ethereum blockchain starting May 31, 2024.
The Plaintiff Azad has subsequently lost at least $25,000 between
both versions of $JENNER.
Caitlyn Jenner is an internationally recognized media personality
and former Olympic gold medal-winning decathlete. Jenner is the
primary promoter, offeror, and seller of $JENNER.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
Trevor Flynn, Esq.
Peter Grazul, Esq.
FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92110
E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
mmonroe@fmfpc.com
tflynn@fmfpc.com
pgrazul@fmfpc.com
CAMBER ENERGY: Hearing on Bid to Junk Rowe Suit Pending in TX Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Camber Energy 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
hearing on the motion to dismiss the Rowe class suit is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston, Division.
On February 9, 2024, plaintiff Lawrence Rowe, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated former public minority
shareholders of Viking, filed against the Company and its CEO a
putative Class Action Complaint (i.e. C.A. No.4:24-cv-00489) styled
Lawrence Rowe, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. James A. Doris and Camber Energy, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.
The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
the merger between Viking and the Company and seeks to recover
damages for the alleged breaches.
The defendants deny the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
("MTD") the case on April 26, 2024.
The MTD hearing was held on August 30, 2024 and the Court's
decision with respect to such hearing remains pending.
Camber Energy, Inc. is an energy company based in Texas. On August
1, 2023, the company completed the merger with Viking pursuant to
the terms and conditions of the Agreement and Plan of Merger
between Camber and Viking dated February 15, 2021, which was
amended on April 18, 2023, with Viking surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Camber.
CENCORA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
On October 30, 2024 a proposed class action was filed in Vancouver
on behalf of all Canadians whose personal information was
compromised in the Cencora, Inc. and Innomar Strategies, Inc.
privacy breach. Court File No. VLC-S-S-247433
The allegations in the claim are that:
-- The breach included sensitive health and personal information
collected by the above noted international pharmaceutical solutions
organizations.
-- The information was extracted by cyber criminals including
name, address, email, health diagnosis and condition, height,
weight, phone number, medical history, and medical prescriptions.
-- The full extent of the breach is not yet known. [GN]
CENGAGE LEARNING: Bernstein Suit Seeks Settlement Prelim. Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE
INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE,
as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CENGAGE
LEARNING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(i) preliminarily approving the Settlement and distribution
plan;
(ii) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, and
preliminarily appointing Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives
and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as Class Counsel for Settlement
purposes;
(iii) approving the form and manner of notice to the Settlement
Class and directing notice under Rule 23(e)(1); and
(iv) scheduling a final approval hearing, at which the Court
will
consider final approval of the Settlement, final approval
of
the distribution plan, and Class Counsel's motion for fees
and costs, based on the accompanying Memorandum of Law in
support of Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
class certification, the supporting Declarations of
Chanler
A. Langham, Tiffaney A. Janowicz, and the Hon. Suzanne H.
Segal (Ret.), and the attached exhibits.
Cengage is a publisher of educational instructional materials.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GccWmK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Rohit D. Nath, Esq.
Chanler A. Langham, Esq.
Alexander W. Aiken
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
clangham@susmangodfrey.com
aaiken@susmangodfrey.com
CHADWICK DOTSON: Court Stays Discovery and Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESLIE PURYEAR, on behalf
of himself and all those similarly situated, V. CHADWICK DOTSON, in
his Individual capacity, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00479-REP (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert E. Payne entered an order re joint
status report and motion to stay discovery and class certification
deadlines:
(1) The joint motion to stay discovery and class certification
deadlines is granted and those deadlines are suspended until
further order of the Court; and
(2) By Dec. 16, 2024, the parties shall file a motion for
preliminary approval of settlement; and
(3) A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of
settlement
shall be held at 2:00 p.m. Jan. 16, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O0npVe at no extra
charge.[CC]
CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: SCL Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STADIUM CAPITAL LLC, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v.
CO-DIAGNOSTICS, INC., DWIGHT H. EGAN, and BRIAN L. BROWN, Case No.
1:22-cv-06978-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian
entered an order that:
1. Plaintiff's motion is granted. The Court finds that the
certified Class respectively satisfies the requirements of
Rules
23(a) and (b)(3), in that: (a) the members of the Class are
so
numerous that joinder of all members thereof is
impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law or fact common to the Class;
(c)
the claims of the Class Representative are typical of the
claims
of the other members of the Class; (d) the Class
Representative
will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
Class;
(e) the questions of law or fact common to the Class
predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members of the
Class; and (f) a class action is superior to other available
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.
2. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the action is certified to proceed
as
a class action, on behalf of the following class ("Class"):
"All persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Co-Dx1 during the period May 12, 2022, through
the
close of the market on Aug. 11, 2022 (4:00 p.m. ET),
inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: Co-Diagnostics, Inc., Dwight H.
Egan, and Brian L. Brown ("Defendants") and Defendants'
immediate family members, any person, firm, trust,
corporation,
officer, director or other individual or entity in which any
Defendant has a controlling interest or which is related to
or
affiliated with any Defendant, and the legal representatives,
agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns
of
any such excluded party.
3. Lead Plaintiff, Stadium Capital LLC, satisfies the
requirements
of Rule 23(a) and is appointed as Class Representative.
4. Lead Counsel, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, is appointed as
Class Counsel for the Class.
Co-Diagnostics is a molecular diagnostics company with unique,
patented Polymerase Chain Reaction ("PCR") testing technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5kPM5y at no extra
charge.[CC]
COEUR MINING: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With SilverCrest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Coeur Mining, Inc.(NYSE: CDE), relating to the
proposed merger with SilverCrest Metals Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, holders of SilverCrest Common Shares will receive 1.6022
shares of Coeur Common Stock in exchange for each share held. Upon
completion of the Arrangement, existing Coeur stockholders will own
approximately 63% of outstanding Coeur Common Stock and existing
SilverCrest shareholders will own approximately 37% on a fully
diluted basis.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/coeur-mining-inc-cde/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
COMEY FAMILY: Coleman Sues Over Alleged Workplace Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
TADAJAH COLEMAN, on behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff v.
COMEY FAMILY AFFAIR D/B/A RACHEL COMEY, and JULIE DISCOURS-RABIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08576 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2024),
arises from Defendants' discriminatory practices that violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State Human
Rights Law, and and New York City Human Rights Law.
On or about April 15, 2024, the Defendants hired Plaintiff Tadajah
Coleman to work as a Digital Marketing Specialist at their offices
located at 636 Broadway, New York, NY. Allegedly, Plaintiff Coleman
and members of the Class were subjected to a hostile work
environment due to discrimination. Throughout her employment with
Defendants, Plaintiff was consistently criticized for behavior that
non-Black employees did without consequence. On or about May 16,
2024, the Plaintiff reported the racial discrimination to Defendant
Julie Discours-Rabin. However, no actions were taken to address the
racial discrimination within the company. As a direct response to
her complaints of racial discrimination, Plaintiff's employment was
terminated on July 23, 2024, says the suit.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Comey Family Affair d/b/a Rachel
Comey designs, manufactures, and sells clothing, shoes, jewelry,
and bags. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Needham, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM IGBOKWE
28 Liberty Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (347) 467-4674
Facsimile: (347) 467-6367
CORAL REEF: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORAL REEF PLAZA INC.; and
ROK GAMING LLC D/B/A ROK ESPORTS CENTER, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-24471-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 13, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial properties located at 15315 S. Dixie Highway, Miami,
Florida 33157 and 15295 S. Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33157, is
not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of
ADA.
Coral Reef Plaza Inc. is in the business of operating sports,
amusement, and recreation services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE: Court Stays Santiago Suit Until Dec. 9
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN SANTIAGO, MARIA
BERTOLINI, JACEY MONTERO, DERRICK BOWDEN, LARRY HARRIS, JAILYNN
DIAZ, and SEBASTIAN SHEPPARD, v. CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE, LLC d/b/a
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE, CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE ARVERNE LLC d/b/a
CUISINE BY CLAUDETTE, GREENHOUSE ROCKAWAY LLC d/b/a GREENHOUSE
CAFE, CLAUDETTE FLATOW, JOHN EFRATI, and YARDEN FLATOW, Case No.
1:23-cv-02675-OEM-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lara Eshkenazi
entered an order granting Mr. William Nolan's motion to withdraw
as counsel, but denying his motion for a retaining lien. This case
is stayed until Dec. 9, 2024, to afford the Defendants the
opportunity to secure new counsel.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Mr. Nolan as counsel of
record for Defendants.
The Court finds that Mr. Nolan has established good cause to
withdraw as counsel for the Defendants. He has made diligent
efforts over the past year to work with Defendants despite their
non-payment of legal fees and gave them ample opportunities to work
out different arrangements to pay his fees. Moreover, he continued
to engage with the discovery process despite not being paid and
encountering difficulties due to lack of communication with his
clients. (See id. at 4, 6, 8, 11). The complete breakdown of
communication and the continued non-payment of fees are
satisfactory reasons to support Mr. Nolan's request to withdraw
Although the Court finds that Mr. Nolan's Motion to Withdraw must
be granted, it recognizes that issuing a retaining lien at this
juncture could result in an unreasonable disruption of these
proceedings.
The Court finds that the further delay of this case, which would
inevitably result from the issuance of a retaining lien to Mr.
Nolan, would unjustly delay Plaintiffs’ prosecution of their
claims.
The Plaintiffs filed this action alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment, in April 2023.
Cuisine By Claudette is a Moroccan-inspired eatery in Rockaway
Park, NY, offering a menu of healthy and flavorful dishes.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pds1kr at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVIDOFF OF GENEVA: Sumlin Alleges Website-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAVIDOFF OF GENEVA (DOWNTOWN NYC), LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08598 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.us.davidoffgeneva.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Davidoff of Geneva USA, Inc. distributes and supplies tobacco
products. The Company offers cigars, humidors, pipes, tobacco,
cigarillos, lighters,, cutters, ashtrays, cases, and accessories.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Tel: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: IBEW's Bid for Class Certification Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte
LLP, Case No. 3:19-cv-03304-JDA (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn
D. Austin entered an order:
-- granting IBEW's motion for class certification, appointment of
class representative, and appointment of class counsel, and
-- denying Deloitte's motion to exclude damages-related expert
opinion of Dr. Matthew D. Cain is DENIED.
IBEW is appointed as Class Representative, Cohen Milstein is
appointed as Class Counsel, and the Tinkler Law Firm is appointed
as Liaison Counsel.
Thus, Deloitte has failed to rebut the Basic presumption of
reliance, and the Court concludes that IBEW has satisfied the Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement.
On Nov. 22, 2019, Samuel R. Floyd, III, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, brought this securities class action
against Deloitte, alleging a violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.
On February 27, 2020, the SEC filed a 416-paragraph complaint
against SCANA and two of its senior officers alleging that SCANA's
statements about the status and ultimate failure of the $9 billion
Nuclear Project violated securities laws and that reports and
documents were available to any reasonably diligent auditor, which
showed that SCANA’s financial statements were not in accordance
with GAAP, despite Deloitte's audit reports to the contrary.
Deloitte offers consulting services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oMqZXk at no extra
charge.[CC]
DEVILS LETTUCE: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SAUNDERS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. DEVILS
LETTUCE NY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08454-JMF-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management as follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices.
-- Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court
proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a
deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of
Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for
adjournments or extensions will not be entertained.
-- In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices, letters and letter motions are limited to four
pages,
exclusive of attachments.
-- If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive
notice in this action, other than those currently listed on the
docket sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at
(212)
805-0228 immediately.
Devils Lettuce grows, educates, and researches the best organic
cannabis available in New York State.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5E3850 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Brewer Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Samuel Brewer, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC, Case No. MON
L-003375-24 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Monmouth County, to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on Nov. 13, 2024, and assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-10486.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges: on behalf of himself and the
Putative Class, that Domino's failed to pay overtime wages to
Putative Class members; and on behalf of himself and the Putative
Class, that Domino's failed to timely pay overtime wages to
Putative Class members.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brook S. Lane, Esq
Hillary Schwab, Esq
FAIR WORK, P.C.
192 South Street, Suite 450
Boston, MA 02111
Phone: (617) 607-3260
Email: hillary@fairworklaw.com
brook@fairworklaw.com
- and -
Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
9 Tanner St. Ste. 101
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 685-7420
Email: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph A. Piesco, Jr., Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1104
Phone: (212) 335-4500
Fax: (212) 335-4501
Email: joseph.piesco@us.dlapiper.com
norman.leon@us.dlapiper.com
ELI LILLY AND COMPANY: Fisher Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Steven Fisher, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No.
24STCV26790 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Nov. 13, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09793 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Eli Lilly and Company, doing business as Lilly --
https://www.lilly.com/ -- is an American multinational
pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Shipley, Esq.
KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 680-8400
Fax: (213) 680-8500
Email: mshipley@kirkland.com
ELITE AUTO: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baddley Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
CAYCE BADDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ELITE AUTO SERVICES OF ORLANDO, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-01778 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 2, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Baddley was employed by the Defendant as a service
technician.
Elite Auto Services of Orlando, LLC provides roadside assistance.
[BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
2300 East Concord Street
Orlando, FL 32803
Telephone: (407) 835-8968
Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
EMS LINQ: Hansen Sues Over Deceptive and Unlawful Convenience Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aubree Hansen and Sarah Perdue, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EMS LINQ, LLC d/b/a LINQ Connect, Case
No. 7:24-cv-01076-BO (E.D.N.C., Nov. 12, 2024), is brought against
Defendant for deceptive practices and obtain damages, restitution
and equitable relief due to an unlawful convenience fee.
As of Fall 2023, more than 52 million students were enrolled at
public schools throughout the United States. Although federal
policy specifies that schools must provide a fee-free option for
school nutrition programs, LINQ Connect deceptively applies a
"Convenience Fee" to all transactions through its LINQ Connect
program. This Convenience Fee is applied whether a user is
preemptively adding money to fund its account or is making payments
on invoiced lunch purchases from the account.
Over the course of a school year, these "Convenience Fees"
significantly increase a family's total spending on school related
costs. In fact, the practice of charging such fees to student's
school nutrition account transactions can collectively costs
families upwards of $100 million each year.
LINQ Connect intentionally adds the Convenience Fee at the end of
the registration process to ensure consumers do not see it. The
addition of the Convenience Fee at the end of the process as a line
item is further deceptive because LINQ Connect knows (or should
know) that even if consumers notice the Convenience Fee, given the
comprehensive sign-up process, they are likely to pay it rather
than starting over or trying to find a way to avoid it. Moreover,
LINQ Connect also fails to notify consumers that there is another
way to pay for the students' lunches without any Convenience Fee.
The Convenience Fee is a sham and a classic "junk fee." The
purported "convenience" of "online processing" provided by LINQ
Connect to facilitate school nutrition programs is the exact
service that LINQ Connect provides--and it is a service that the
school districts have already contracted and paid for. This
groundless Convenience Fee is merely a surreptitious second form of
free revenue (i.e., double dipping) that Defendant extracts at
expense of consumers. Indeed, LINQ Connect profits from both the
school districts and unsuspecting consumers, earning hundreds of
millions of dollars per year.
As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class were significantly harmed by
Defendant's conduct. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, seek to end LINQ Connect's deceptive
practices and obtain damages, restitution and equitable relief,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs created accounts with the Defendant.
LINQ Connect is a credit card payment processing company which owns
and operates an account platform used by public schools across the
country to facilitate payment for school meals (i.e., the LINQ
Connect program).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL GOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: jkaliel@kalielgold.com
- and -
Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
950 Gilman Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (202) 350-4783
Email: sgold@kalielgold.com
ENGLEWOOD HOSPITALITY: Saraci Sues Over Unpaid Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gentian Saraci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ENGLEWOOD HOSPITALITY, LLC d/b/a LEFKES ESTIATORIO and
GEORGIA DUMAS, Case No. 2:24-cv-10489 (D.N.J., Nov. 14, 2024), is
brought to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
misappropriated gratuities, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL").
The Defendants failed to pay Saraci and other front-of-the-house
staff at Lefkes any wages at all for hours worked. During these
periods, the only monies that Saraci received came through customer
gratuities. During periods when Defendants paid Saraci wages,
Defendants: underpaid Saraci by shaving hours; and unlawfully
applied a tip credit against Saraci's wages and the wages of other
front-of-the-house staff despite failing to provide proper notice,
unlawfully deducting credit card fees from customer tips,
unlawfully deducting charges for broken dining ware and disputed
transactions from customer tips, and including an ineligible
employee in the tip pool, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a server from
September 2021 through October 20, 2024.
Lefkes Estiatorio is a Mediterranean fine dining restaurant located
in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
Camille A. Sanchez, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue – 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 583-9500
Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
cuadra@pechmanlaw.com
sanchez@pechmanlaw.com
ENTERO THERAPEUTICS: M&A Probes Merger With Journey Therapeutics
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Entero Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ENTO), relating to
the proposed merger with Journey Therapeutics, Inc. Under the terms
of the agreement, the shareholders of Journey will acquire 99% of
the equity of Entero.
Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/entero-therapeutics-inc-ento/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1 .Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
EVOLVE BANK: Liang Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jen Liang and Mason Maldonado, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Evolve Bank &
Trust, Case No. 1:24-cv-10311 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on Nov. 14,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02885-SHL-cgc to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Evolve Bank & Trust -- https://www.getevolved.com/ -- is a
best-in-class technology-focused financial services organization
and Banking-as-a-Service ("BaaS") provider.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H Street NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Fax: (202) 800-2730
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael Rosenberg, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
353 N Clark St., Ste. 3600
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: (312) 924-9800
Email: mrosenberg@orrick.com
EZ FESTIVALS: Court Extends Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palie, et al. v. EZ
Festivals LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08422 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Willis entered an order granting the Parties request
to extend the deadlines for the class certification briefing.
The Parties are directed to contact Courtroom Deputy Christopher
Davis via email by Nov. 25, 2024 at
WillisNYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov to provide three mutually
agreeable dates in January, February, and March for a
pre-settlement conference and a settlement conference a week later.
The Parties are to provide mutually agreeable deadlines at the
conclusion of the settlement conference.
Accordingly, the parties request either of the following briefing
schedules depending on which date the settlement conference is set:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Jan. 2, 2025
-- Defendants' opposition: Feb. 3, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Feb. 21, 2025
Or
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Jan. 9, 2025
-- Defendants' opposition: Feb. 10, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Feb. 28, 2025
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pdYywB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Fletcher Moore, Esq.
MOORE KEUHN, PLLC
30 Wall St 8fl
New York, NY 10005
E-mail: fmoore@moorekuehn.com
- and -
Jacob Chen, Esq.
Rita Wang, Esq.
DGW KRAMER, LLP
Rockefeller Plaza Floor 10
New York, NY 10020
E-mail: jchen@dgwllp.com
rita@dgwllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Corbett, Esq.
CORBETT RIGHTS, P.C.
5551 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1248
Los Angeles, CA 90028
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com
- and -
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
9 Park Ave Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
E-mail: shelly.friedland@parkerpohl.com
- and -
Eyal Dror, Esq.
TRIEF & OLK
750 3rd Ave Suite 2902
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: edror@triefandolk.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick M. Kennell, Esq.
Kathleen A. Mullins, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
E-mail: pkennell@kaufmandolowich.com
kathleen.mullins@kaufmandolowich.com
EZ FESTIVALS: Parties Seek OK of Briefing Schedule
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCKMOLE et al v. EZ
FESTIVALS LLC et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08106-MMG-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting briefing schedules
depending on which date the settlement conference is set:
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Jan. 2, 2025
-- Defendants' opposition: Feb. 3, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Feb. 21, 2025
or
-- Plaintiffs' opening brief: Jan. 9, 2025
-- Defendants' opposition: Feb. 10, 2025
-- Plaintiffs' reply brief: Feb. 28, 2025
The parties have met and conferred and are available on December 3
and 10, 2024 for the settlement conference, and for a
pre-conference call with Your Honor one week earlier, i.e.,
November 26 or December 3, 2024, respectively.
The Plaintiffs propose this extension because the issue of class
certification may be rendered moot or limited depending on the
outcome of the settlement conference.
Currently, Plaintiffs' opening brief is due on Nov. 8, 2024,
Defendants' opposition is due Dec. 9, 2024, and Plaintiffs' reply
brief is due December 27, 2024.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZsfK27 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lee Squitieri, Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com
- and -
Fletcher Moore, Esq.
MOORE KEUHN, PLLC
30 Wall St 8fl
New York, NY 10005
E-mail: fmoore@moorekuehn.com
- and -
Jacob Chen, Esq.
DGW KRAMER, LLP
Rockefeller Plaza Floor 10
New York, NY 10020
E-mail: jchen@dgwllp.com
- and -
Rita Wang, Esq.
E-mail: rita@dgwllp.com
- and -
Jonathan Corbett, Esq.
Rita Wang, Esq.
CORBETT RIGHTS, P.C.
5551 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 1248
Los Angeles, CA 90028
E-mail: jon@corbettrights.com
rita@dgwllp.com
- and -
Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
PARKER POHL LLP
9 Park Ave Suite 1510
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 202-8886
E-mail: shelly.friedland@parkerpohl.com
- and -
Eyal Dror, Esq.
TRIEF & OLK
750 3rd Ave Suite 2902
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: edror@triefandolk.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Patrick M. Kennell, Esq.
Kathleen A. Mullins, Esq.
KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
Woodbury, NY 11797
E-mail: pkennell@kaufmandolowich.com
kathleen.mullins@kaufmandolowich.com
FANEUIL INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Sandoval Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
MERCEDES SANDOVAL; and JONATHAN EMERSON, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FANEUIL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Nov. 16, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as a customer service
representative.
Faneuil, Inc. provides bussiness processing solutions. The Company
offers broad outsourcing support, customer care centers, back
office operations, medical device tracking, violation processing,
and information technology services in the sectors of healthcare,
government, and utilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Erlich, Esq.
THE ERLICH LAW OFFICE
1550 Wilson Blvd #700
Arlington, VA22209
Telephone: (703) 791-9087
Email: jerlich@erlichlawoffice.com
- and -
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
43000 W. 9 Mile Rd., Ste. 301 PMB 2113
Novi, MI 48375
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Telephone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
FCA US: Snowman Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Mitchell Snowman, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 24CU012939C was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on Nov. 13, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-02126-JES-MMP.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for: fraud by omission or fraudulent
concealment (Count I); unjust enrichment (Count II); violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Count III);
breach of express warranty (Count IV); breach of implied warranty
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Count V); and
violation of California's Business & Professions Code ("UCL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gregory P. Gilmer, Esq.
Kristyn Wong, Esq.
KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD
1920 Main St., Ste. 230
Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: (949) 676-4570
Email: greg.gilmer@kleinthomaslaw.com
kristyn.wong@kleinthomaslaw.com
- and -
Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq.
Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD
100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: (314) 888-2970
Email: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com
scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com
FEDEX GROUND: Court Tosses Depina Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARA DEPINA, v. FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00156-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.
Although Depina has established numerosity and adequacy, the Court
finds that she has failed to establish commonality and typicality
as required by Rule 23(a) as to any of the classes or subclasses.
Depina cannot establish commonality because there is no common
question of law or fact to the class given the variance in the
length of the security lines and the security wait time payment
methods. She cannot establish typicality because the putative class
members do not share the same injury.
Finally, Depina cannot establish predominance pursuant to Rule
23(b) because the lack of a uniform policy would require the Court
to make individual inquiries.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Depina
seeks to certify the following classes of an estimate 69,000
package handlers:
Security check class:
"All persons employed by FedEx as package handlers in hourly or
non-exempt positions in California who underwent security
screening during the relevant time period."
Security Check Meal Period Sub-Class:
"All Security Check Class members who worked a shift in excess
of
five hours."
Security Check Rest Break Sub-Class:
"All Security Check Class members who worked a shift of at
least
three and one-half hours."
Recordkeeping Meal Period Class:
"All persons employed by FedEx as package handlers in hourly or
non-exempt positions in California who worked a shift in excess
of
five hours during the relevant time period whose timekeeping
records reflect a late, shortened, or missed meal period."
On Nov. 18, 2022, plaintiff Clara Depina, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Sonoma alleging eight
causes of action.
FedEx is a corporation that offers package pickup and delivery
services throughout the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cjUpTL at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLORIDA POWER: Sued for Damages Over Service Interruption
---------------------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2024,
that it is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
February 2018 that seeks from FPL unspecified damages for alleged
breach of contract and gross negligence based on service
interruptions that occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma in 2017.
There is currently no trial date set. In June 2024, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for rehearing, rehearing en banc or certification
with the 3rd DCA and that motion was denied in August 2024. In
September 2024, the plaintiffs filed a request for the Florida
Supreme Court to review the 3rd DCA's order decertifying the class
and remanding and staying the case, which request remains pending.
The Miami-Dade County Circuit Court certified the case as a class
action and FPL's appeal of that decision was denied by Florida's
Third District Court of Appeal in March 2023. The certified class
encompasses all persons and business owners who reside in and are
otherwise citizens of the state of Florida that contracted with FPL
for electrical services, were charged storm charges, experienced a
power outage after Hurricane Irma and suffered consequential
damages because of FPL's alleged breach of contract or gross
negligence. FPL filed a motion on March 31, 2023, for rehearing
with the 3rd DCA claiming that the opinion upholding the class
certification contains several errors that should be reheard by the
full 3rd DCA. The motion is pending.
Additionally, in July 2023, FPL filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the basis that, among other things, it believes the FPSC
has exclusive jurisdiction over any issues arising from a utility's
preparation for and response to emergencies or disasters.
Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in
Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company
serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in
Florida.
FORD MOTOR: Lessin Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
and certifying classes for Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois,
Maine, New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas.
The certified classes may pursue the following claims:
1. Arizona: Breach of Express Warranty;
2. California: (1) violation of the CLRA, and (2) common law
fraudulent concealment;
3. Colorado: (1) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection
Act,
and (2) common law fraudulent concealment;
4. Illinois: violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive
Trade Practices Act;
5. New Mexico: (1) Breach of Express Warranty, and (2) violation
of
New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act;
6. South Carolina: Breach of Implied Warranty; and
7. Texas: (1) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act,
and (2) Breach of Express Warranty.
The Court further grants Plaintiffs' motion to appoint MLG and CC
as class counsel. In addition, the Court denies with leave to amend
the remaining classes.
Finally, the Court directs counsel of their duty under Doc. No.
102, Page 3, item 4, "Within three (3) days of a ruling on the
motion for class certification, the parties must jointly contact
the Court via email (at efile_goddard@casd.uscourts.gov) to arrange
a further case management conference."
The Court finds statute of limitations defenses do not defeat class
certification, and that the predominance requirement is met here
The Court finds that the issue of arbitration agreements does not
preclude class certification.
The Plaintiffs allege the Class Vehicles suffer from one or more
defects in their suspension and steering linkage systems,
including, but not limited to, abnormal wearing and/or loosening of
the track bar bushing, steering damper, the ball joints, control
arms, shock absorbers, and/or struts (the "Suspension Defect").
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w5UkLm at no extra
charge.[CC]
FULCRUM THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Celano Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fulcrum Therapeutics 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 Celano securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
On April 28, 2023, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and current and former officers (the "Securities Action").
On May 19, 2023, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
captioned Celano v. Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-11125-IT.
On July 31, 2023, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
an amended complaint on September 29, 2023.
The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants and control person
violations of Section 20(a) against the individuals, related to the
Company's February 2023 announcement that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration issued a clinical hold regarding the investigational
new drug application for pociredir for the potential treatment of
sickle cell disease.
The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading
statements and omitted to disclose material information related to
the clinical hold and seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages in connection with an allegedly inflated stock price
between March 3, 2022, and March 8, 2023, as well as attorneys'
fees and costs.
On November 28, 2023, all defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Securities Action.
Briefing was completed on the motion in February 2024, and the
motion is currently pending.
The Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation.
Fulcrum Therapeutics, Inc. is focused on treatment of
genetically-defined rare diseases in areas of high unmet medical
need.
GEO GROUP: Gonzalez Seeks to File Exhibit Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA,
ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. The GEO
Group, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order allowing the Plaintiffs
to file under-seal Exhibit A in support of Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Reply.
Exhibits A includes documents that have been designated as
confidential by the Defendant according to the terms of the
protective order in this case.
The document consists of excerpts of Defendant GEO Group's training
materials.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b) Plaintiffs met and conferred
with the Defendant's counsel on November 8, 2024. Defendants
requested that the documents be filed under seal.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs hereby submit this Application for
Leave to File Under Seal together with the accompanying declaration
of Lindsay Battles, as set forth in Local Rule 79-5.2.2(b).
GEO Group provides leading, evidence-based rehabilitation programs
to individuals while in-custody and post-release into the
community.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sYUtDa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
Tessa R. Baizer, Esq.
UCLA LAW CLINICS
385 Charles E Young Drive
East Los Angeles, CA 90095
E-mail: csweetser@sshhzlaw.com
baizer@law.ucla.edu
- and -
Paul Hoffman, Esq.
John Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
200 Pier Avenue, #226
Hermosa Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 396-0731
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
jwashington@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
Lindsay Battles, Esq.
McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
975 East Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 844-7660
E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com
lbattles@mbllegal.com
GOOGLE LLC: May Face Class Action Suit Over Addictive Video Games
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Irish Mae Silvestre, writing for blogTO, reports that several major
gaming and tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Electronic
Arts could face a potential class-action lawsuit for allegedly
causing players to become addicted.
Canadian law firm Consumer Law Group (CLG) said in a notice that
it's investigating these companies due to allegations that they
created games that caused "harmful video game addiction in players
and users."
"Consumer Law Group believes action must be taken for the millions
of people suffering from video game addiction and who the proposed
class action defendants have and continue to intentionally target
with predatory video games they know are responsible for causing
significant and irremediable harms and a mental health epidemic
among minor and young adults and neurodivergent players," reads the
statement.
Consequently, the law firm said it's seeking punitive and
compensatory damages for the physical, psychological, and financial
harm incurred by Canadians who purchased or used video games,
platforms, or hardware.
Companies being investigated for the potential Canada-wide
class-action lawsuit include:
-- Activision Blizzard Inc.
-- Infinity Ward, Inc.
-- Treyarch Corp.
-- Sledgehammer Games Inc.
-- Microsoft Corporation
-- Epic Games Inc.
-- EA Digital Illusions CE AB d/b/a Dice
-- Electronic Arts Inc.
-- Ubisoft Divertissements, Inc. d/b/a Ubisoft Montreal
-- Ubisoft Entertainment
-- Nintendo of America Inc.
-- BlueStacks by Now.GG, Inc. d/b/a BlueStacks
-- Mojang Studios
-- MSI Computer Corporation
-- Raven Software Corporation
-- Roblox Corporation
-- Rockstar Games, Inc.
-- Rockstar North Limited
-- Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC.
-- Sledgehammer Games, Inc.
-- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
-- Treyarch Corporation
-- Google LLC.
CLG alleges that the companies "deliberately continued to conceal
the addictive nature of their video game products, as well as the
clearly documented associated harms to players' and users' mental
health, social relations, educational outcomes, and finances."
Canadians who purchased, played, or used a video game sold,
designed, produced, or developed by these companies could be
eligible for compensation. Those who wish to join or simply want to
stay informed can enter their details here. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek Temporary Sealing of Materials
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting temporary sealing motion
and notice of lodging under seal of materials previously ordered
sealed in support of plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification:
The Plaintiffs cite to, summarize, and submit documents in support
of plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, filed this
same date, that either plaintiffs or Google have designated
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential – Attorneys' Eyes Only"
pursuant to the protective order in this case.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion cites to or attaches
materials and information that have previously been ordered sealed
in whole or in part by this Court.
In accordance with Judge Gonzalez Rogers' Standing Order Rule 12,
Procedures for Filing Under Seal at section (b)(i)(1), the reasons
for sealing of those materials not previously ordered sealed
identified in the chart above will be addressed in a forthcoming
Omnibus Sealing Motion, to be filed after the conclusion of
briefing related to plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SeTbxV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
GOOGLE LLC: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Account Holders
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an Order:
-- certifying this action as a class action,
-- appointing plaintiffs as representatives of the Class, and
-- appointing Elizabeth Pritzker of Pritzker Levine LLP,
Lesley
Weaver of Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Jay Barnes of Simmons
Hanly Conroy LLP, David Straite of DiCello Levitt LLP,
Nanci
Nishimura of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, LLP, and Francis
Bottini, Jr. of Bottini & Bottini, Inc. as Class Counsel,
with
Ms. Pritzker to serve as Lead Class Counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of all individual
Google account holders subject to a Google U.S. Terms of Service
("ToS") who have an active Google account (the proposed "Class").
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following claims, all
arising under California law: (i) breach of contract, (ii) breach
of confidence, (iii) invasion of privacy, (iv) intrusion upon
seclusion, (v) publication of private facts, (vi) for violations of
the California Information Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code
section 631.2; and (vi) for violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").
Google is an American-based multinational corporation and
technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine
technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing,
e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C2HqOL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Lesley Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
David A. Straite, Esq.
James Ulwick, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
julwick@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
Brian Danitz, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com
bdanitz@cpmlegal.com
kswope@cpmlegal.com
- and -
Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
Aaron P. Arnzen, Esq.
BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste. 102
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 914-2001
E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
aarnzen@bottinilaw.com
GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grail 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 consolidated securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action
complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current
and former executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California. The first-filed case is
captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al., the second-filed case is
captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al., and the third-filed case is
captioned Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension & Relief Fund v. Illumina,
Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Actions").
The complaints generally allege, among other things, that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of Grail.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the
Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff Motions").
On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc.
Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. (the "Lead
Plaintiffs").
On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina,
and certain of their respective current and former directors and
others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of
GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same. GRAIL has an
indemnification obligation for certain current and former directors
and officers involved in the matter pursuant to indemnification
agreements entered into by these individuals and GRAIL.
On September 13, 2024 the plaintiffs further amended the complaint.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation.
GRAIL, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
focuses on combining science, technology, and clinical studies to
reveal cancer at its beginings. GRAIL offers its services in the
United States. Previously, a subsidiary of Illumina and spun-out on
June 24, 2024
HASBRO INC: Faces Class Action Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAS) investment
and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal
securities laws, follow the link below for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/hasbro-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=112165&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Hasbro, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between February 7,
2022 and October 25, 2023.
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint, it is alleged that
defendants made numerous materially false and misleading statements
and omissions about the quality inventory that Hasbro held
throughout the class period, and represented that its rising
inventory levels reflected outstanding and anticipated demand,
rather than excess supply that outpaced waning demand. As a result
of the foregoing, Hasbro common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices throughout the Class Period and defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Hasbro, Inc. stock during
the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/hasbro-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=112165&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
HASBRO INC: Wet Palm Sues Over Drop in Share Price
--------------------------------------------------
WEST PALM BEACH FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HASBRO, INC.;
RICHARD STODDART; CHRISTIAN COCKS; DEBORAH THOMAS; GINA GOETTER;
and ERIC NYMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08633 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
13, 2024) alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, Hasbro made false,
reassuring statements to investors concerning the extent of the
inventory buildup. On April 27, 2023, Defendants claimed that
Hasbro had made "good progress on reducing retailer inventories and
are on track for healthy improvements in our owned inventory."
On October 26, 2023, before the market opened, Hasbro shocked
investors when it announced its financial results for its fiscal
year 2023 third quarter, and disclosed an 18 percent decline in
Consumer Product revenues year-over-year, along with a significant
reduction in guidance for the remainder of the year. Defendants
further revealed that the Company was forecasting "$50-ish million
of onetime cost" that was to be spent on "mov[ing] through
inventory at the retailer level, extra marketing to move through
the inventory, [and] extra obsolescence cost" in its Consumer
Products segment.
As a result of these disclosures, Hasbro's stock price declined by
$6.38 per share, or 11.7 percent, from a closing price of $54.75
per share on October 25, 2023, to a closing price of $48.37 per
share on October 26, 2023, erasing $831 million in shareholder
value.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous declines in the market value of the Company's shares
alleged herein, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Hasbro, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets toys, games,
interactive software, puzzles, and infant products. The Company's
products include a variety of games, including traditional board,
card, hand-held electronic, trading card, role-playing, and DVD
games, as well as electronic learning aids and puzzles. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hannah Ross, Esq.
Avi Josefson, Esq.
Scott R. Foglietta, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
Email: hannah@blbglaw.com
avi@blbglaw.com
scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN
& LEVINSON
7080 Northwest 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33315
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Email: bob@robertdklausner.com
HDR GLOBAL: Fact Discovery in Lee Due Sept. 30, 2025
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DREW LEE and FELIX LUFKIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HDR
GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, ABS GLOBAL TRADING LIMITED, 100X HOLDINGS
LIMITED, SHINE EFFORT INC LIMITED, HDR GLOBAL SERVICES (BERMUDA),
ARTHUR HAYES, BEN DELO, GREG DWYER and SAMUEL REED, Case No.
1:20-cv-03232-ALC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart Aaron
entered an
amended fact discovery schedule order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed Sept. 30, 2025
by no later than:
-- Document productions shall be Jan. 31, 2025
substantially completed by:
-- All productions of documents responsive Dec. 4, 2024
to requests for production served by:
-- Fact depositions may commence on: Mar. 17, 2025
HDR is the Seychelles-incorporated owner and operator of the BitMEX
cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8G5AA at no extra
charge.[CC]
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks More Time to Oppose Strike Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of
time in which to file his opposition to Defendant's motion to
strike the report and testimony of Narseo Vallina-Rodriguez from
Nov. 22, 2024 to Dec. 18, 2024, and for leave to file a reply brief
in support of his motion for class certification alongside his
Daubert opposition brief on Dec. 18, 2024.
On Sept. 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.
On Oct. 30, 2024, the Defendant took the deposition of Dr.
Vallina-Rodriguez.
On November 8, 2024, Defendant filed an opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification and a motion to strike Dr. Vallina
Rodriguez's testimony.
The Plaintiff anticipated that Defendant would utilize expert
testimony for this purpose, and specifically sought to ensure that
he could take timely depositions of those experts. Therefore,
Plaintiff requested availability for their depositions long before
they were even disclosed. Plaintiff emailed Defendant requesting
their availabilities on October 28, November 4, and immediately
following Defendant’s filing on November 8.
The Defendant's class certification opposition brief makes several
arguments that Plaintiff could not adequately address in his moving
brief, and Defendant’s opposition relies on expert reports that
Plaintiff will have no opportunity to challenge at the class
certification stage. Further, both pending motions strongly involve
the reliability of Dr. Vallina-Rodriguez’s methodology, which
Defendant’s experts purport to call into question.
The Plaintiff therefore seeks to file these two critical briefs
following the depositions of Defendant's experts.
The Plaintiff conferred with Defendant about this request, and
Defendant has advised that it takes no position. This is
Plaintiff's first and only request for modification of this
deadline and for leave to file the referenced reply brief.
Hearst is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by
Hearst Communications.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mBbmqX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HERTZ CORP: Court Vacates Case Management Conference in Maharaj
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maharaj v. The Hertz
Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 14,
2023), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order
vacating case management conference.
-- Upon review of the parties' joint case management conference
statement, and in light of the parties' representation that
mediation is going forward in December 2024, and they have or
will
have the necessary discovery they need to hold a meaningful
mediation, the further case management conference scheduled for
November 14, 2024, is vacated.
-- The Court will next see the parties in connection with the
class
certification proceedings unless the case resolves.
The nature of suit states Labor Litigation.
Hertz operates as a car rental company.[CC]
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Files Cross Appeals in Henkel Suit to 3rd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHGATE HOTELS LP, et al. are taking a cross appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Chelsea Henkel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Highgate
Hotels LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3-15-cv-01435, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint against the Defendants for alleged unpaid tips
and gratuities under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.
On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which the Court granted under Rule 23 but denied the motion for
conditional collective certification under the FLSA on June 22,
2021.
On June 26, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to decertify class
and a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
On June 27, 2023, Judge Jennifer P. Wilson denied the Defendants'
motion for judgment as a matter of law as to the unjust enrichment
claim. However, the motion was granted with respect to the
Plaintiff's FLSA and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act unpaid overtime
claims.
On Oct. 19, 2023, the Defendants filed a renewed motion for
judgment as a matter of law, and a motion to decertify class.
On Sept. 30, 2024, Judge Wilson granted the Defendants' renewed
motion for judgment as a matter of law and denied as moot the
Defendants' motion to decertify the class. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiff failed to prove her unjust enrichment claim as a matter
of law, and thus, entered judgment in favor of the Defendants.
On Oct. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff appealed the Sept. 30 Order.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Chelsea Henkel v. Highgate
Hotels LP, et al., Case No. 24-3099, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 8, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee CHELSEA HENKEL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
Russell S. Moriarty, Esq.
LEVINE & BLIT
800 Westchester Avenue, Suite S-322
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: (212) 967-3000
Defendants-Appellees HIGHGATE HOTELS LP, et al. are represented
by:
Donald D. Gamburg, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 995-2818
- and -
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
700 W. 47th Street, Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
- and -
Christina M. Schmid, Esq.
OGLETREE DEAKINS
599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 492-2500
HONEY 490 INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yoon Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
DANA YOON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HONEY 490 INC.; HONEY 641 INC.; HONEY 681
INC.; HONEY 1414 INC.; HONEY 2830 INC.; HONEY 2132 INC.; HONEY 810
INC.; HONEY 833 INC.; HONEY 33 INC.; ABC COMPANY; JINA SUN; and
JISOO SUN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07909 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 13,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Yoon was employed by the Defendants as a cosmetologist.
Honey 490 Inc. operates a chain of nail salons known as “Honey
Nail” at Brooklyn, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (718) 573-1111
Email: ryan@ryankimlaw.com
HORIZON ORGANIC: Wright Sues Over Mislabeled Cheese Products
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HORIZON ORGANIC DAIRY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 4:24-cv-07991 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells Horizon
brand cheese products.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the packaging of the
products prominently displays that these Products contain "No
Artificial Flavors or Preservatives." This advertisement is false.
Each of the Products are made with "citric acid" and "sodium
citrate"—artificial preservatives used in food products.
The Defendant's packaging, labeling, and advertising scheme is
intended to give consumers the reasonable belief that they are
buying a premium product that is free from artificial ingredients.
The Plaintiff saw and relied on the "No Artificial Flavors or
Preservatives" claim on the label of the Product when she purchased
it. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product, or would have
paid less for the Product, had she known that the Product contains
artificial ingredients in direct contradiction to the "No
Artificial Flavors or Preservatives" statement on the label. As a
result, the Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money
to purchase the Product she would not have purchased, or would have
paid less for, absent Defendant's misconduct.
Horizon Organic Dairy, LLC produces organic dairy products. The
Company offers milk, cheese, eggs, yogurt, creams, butter, cottage
and cream cheese, and sour creams. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com
mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com
HUMACYTE INC: Faces Securities Class Suit for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00954, on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Humacyte, Inc.
("Humacyte" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HUMA) securities between May
10, 2024 and October 17, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Humacyte investments or would like
to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Humacyte-Inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On August 9, 2024, after the market closed, Humacyte issued a press
release announcing that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
"will require additional time to complete its review of its
Biologic License Application (BLA) for the acellular tissue
engineered vessel (ATEV) in the vascular trauma indication." The
press release disclosed in part, that, "[d]uring the course of the
BLA review, the FDA has conducted inspections of our manufacturing
facilities and clinical sites and has actively engaged with us in
multiple discussions regarding our BLA filing[.]"
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $1.29, or 16.4%,
to close at $6.62 per share on August 12, 2024, on unusually heavy
volume.
On October 17, 2024, during market hours, the FDA released a Form
483 concerning Humacyte's Durham, North Carolina facility, which
revealed a number of violations, including "no microbial quality
assurance," "no microbial testing," and inadequate "quality
oversight."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $0.95, or 16.35%,
to close at $4.86 per share on October 17, 2024, on unusually heavy
volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company's Durham, North Carolina facility
failed to comply with good manufacturing practices, including
quality assurance and microbial testing; (2) that the FDA's review
of the BLA would be delayed while Humacyte remediated these
deficiencies; and (3) that, as a result, there was a substantial
risk to FDA approval of ATEV for vascular trauma; and (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Humacyte securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from
the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (888) 773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
ILLINOIS: Arcidiacono Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE ARCIDIACONO, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Salvatore Arcidiacono, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Elizabeth M. Whitehorn, in her official capacity as
Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00412, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The Plaintiffs bring claims under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for a denial of
their entitlement to Medicaid benefits.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, which Judge
Manish S. Shah granted on Oct. 11, 2024. The Court ruled that the
Plaintiffs are not due any process under the Fourteenth Amendment
because they were not deprived of their benefits, and risk no
future deprivation. Moreover, because the Defendants did not
deprive the Plaintiffs of long-term nursing facility care, they did
not violate Section 1396a(a)(10)(A) and 1396d(a)(4)(A) of the
Medicaid Act. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Salvatore Arcidiacono, et al. v.
Elizabeth Whitehorn, et al., Case No. 24-3019, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 6,
2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's transcript information sheet was due on November
20, 2024; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 16, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SALVATORE ARCIDIACONO, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Kelsey Feucht, Esq.
SB2, INC.
1426 N. Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: (312) 802-0940
Defendants-Appellees ELIZABETH M. WHITEHORN, in her official
capacity as Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and
Family Services, et al. are represented by:
Frank Henry Bieszczat, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
115 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 814-2234
INSTITUTE FOR THE INT'L: Galban Appeals Suit Dismissal to 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTEN GALBAN is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Kristen Galban, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Institute for the
International Education of Students, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-04917, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
The Plaintiff brings claims on behalf of a proposed class against
International Education of Students (IES) Abroad for breach of
contract and, alternatively, unjust enrichment.
On Aug. 31, 2023, the Court dismissed the Plaintiff's original
complaint due to her failure to identify a concrete and
particularized injury she in fact experienced.
The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved
to dismiss, arguing that she lacks standing to sue under Article
III of the Constitution and that her amended complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On Sept. 26, 2024, Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff has
standing to sue, but a clause in the parties' written agreement
reserving to IES Abroad the right to change the study abroad
program prevents her from recovering.
The appellate case is captioned Kristen Galban v. Institute for the
Int'l Education of Students, Case No. 24-3021, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on November 6,
2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's docketing statement was due on November 12,
2024;
-- Appellant's transcript information sheet was due on November
20, 2024; and
-- Appellant's brief is due on or before December 16, 2024.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant KRISTEN GALBAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Matthew Peterson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ADVOCATE, PLLC
225 First Avenue, N.
Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
Telephone: (815) 999-9130
Defendant-Appellee INSTITUTE FOR THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION OF
STUDENTS is represented by:
Mark W. Wallin, Esq.
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
One N. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 214-4591
JANUS HENDERSON: Seeks to Restrict Class Cert Docs in Schissler
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANDRA SCHISSLER, KARLY
SISSEL, and DERRICK HITTSON, individually and as a representative
of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the
Janus 401(k) and Employee Stock Ownership Plan, v. JANUS HENDERSON
US (HOLDINGS) INC., JANUS HENDERSON ADVISORY COMMITTEE, and JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:22-cv-02326-RM-SBP (D. Colo.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order restricting certain
documents filed in support of the Defendants' opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
In particular, the Defendants seek to restrict:
(i) a confidential review of the Janus 401(k) Plan, attached as
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Sara Brauerman;
(ii) portions of the Declaration of Susan Armstrong;
(iii) the Expert Report of Jennifer Conrad, PhD; and
(iv) portions of Defendants' Class Cert. Opp. that rely on
Exhibit
B, the Conrad Report, and the Armstrong Declaration.
Exhibit B and the Conrad Report contain confidential investment
performance evaluation and strategy, present comparative data, and
analyze market trends and projections.
No alternative to restricting Exhibit B to the Brauerman Decl.,
Paragraph 8 of the Armstrong Decl., and the Conrad Report is
practicable because Defendants attach and rely on them in their
Class Cert. Opp.
Exhibit B to the Brauerman Decl., Paragraph 8 of the Armstrong
Exhibit, and the Conrad Report contain confidential information and
are properly subject to a Level 1 restriction in their entirety,
per the Protective Order and D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.2.
Janus Henderson operates as an investment management company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UkHubr at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Holly Stein Sollod, Esq.
Jonathan S. Bender, Esq.
Adrianne K. Rosenbluth, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
555 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 295-8000
E-mail: hsteinsollod@hollandhart.com
jsbender@hollandhart.com
akrosenbluth@hollandhart.com
- and -
Jason M. Halper, Esq.
Sara E. Brauerman, Esq.
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
1114 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 237-0000
E-mail: jhalper@velaw.com
sbrauerman@velaw.com
JARDACK REAL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Pardo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JARDACK REAL ESTATE CORP.;
IL LAGO TRATTORIA CORP; and BEIRUT DORAL 73 LLC D/B/A BEIRUT DORAL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24498-BB (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2024)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants'
commercial plaza located at 2475 NW 95th Avenue, Doral, Florida
33172, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in
violation of ADA.
Jardack Real Estate Corp. is engaged in the real estate business in
Florda. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
K2 YH INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shutthijit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
UMMARAPORN SHUTTHIJIT; NICHAPHAT REUMRAD; JUN HYUK LEE ERIC KIM;
and SEDON KANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. K2 YH, INC.; ANYTIME SOJU, INC.; SEUNGCHAN
SHIN and SEUNGEUN JEONG, Defendants, Case No. 24-CV-8709 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 15, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
K2 YH, Inc. operates a Spot Karaoke & Lounge NYC at New York, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
RYAN KIM LAW, P.C.
222 Bruce Reynolds Blvd. Suite 490
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Email: ryan@RyanKimLaw.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to March 17, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WAYAN GARVEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. KELLER WILLIAMS
REALTY, INC. AND BRITNEY GAITAN, Case No. 2:23-cv-00920-APG-DJA (D.
Nev.), the Court entered an order granting renewed stipulation to
extend the remaining deadlines in the case by three months.
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Class certification expert Nov. 4, 2024 Feb. 3,
2025
disclosures:
Class certification rebuttal Dec. 2, 2024 Mar. 3,
2025
expert disclosures:
Class certification motion: Dec. 16, 2024 Mar. 17,
2025
Discovery cutoff: June 16, 2025 Sept. 15,
2025
Dispositive motions: July 14, 2025 Oct. 13,
2025
Pretrial order: Aug. 11, 2025 Nov. 10,
2025
Keller is an American technology and international real estate
franchise.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SDghqx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are 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
- and -
Craig K. Perry, Esq.
CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES
6210 N. Jones Blvd. #753907
Las Vegas, NV 89136-8985
Telephone: (702) 228-4777
Facsimile: (702) 943-7520
E-mail: cperry@craigperry.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, #1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
- and -
Melissa A. Saragosa-Stratton, Esq.
Robert McCoy, Esq.
Sihomara L. Graves, Esq.
KAEMPFER CROWELL
1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
Las Vegas, NV 89135
Telephone: (702) 792-7000
Facsimile: (702) 796-7181
E-mail: rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com
sgraves@kcnvlaw.com
KIA MOTORS: Sanchez Bid for Class Certification Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YANDERY SANCHEZ, et al.,
v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-01604-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the motion for class
certification;
-- granting in part and denying in part the two motions to exclude
the Plaintiffs' Experts;
-- certifying the following ten Classes:
California Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2022 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of California."
Georgia Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Georgia."
Indiana Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Indiana."
Iowa Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2022 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Iowa."
New Mexico Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of New Mexico."
North Carolina Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2022 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of North Carolina."
Pennsylvania Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Tennessee Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Tennessee."
Texas Class:
All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Texas."
Virginia Class:
"All persons who purchased or leased any 2020–2023 Kia
Telluride
vehicle in the State of Virginia."
The Court also entered an order:
-- appointing Mark Treston, Tewana Nelson, Linda Wilbur, Andrea
Reiher-Odom, Margaret Ritzler, Amber Witt, Jennifer Rocco, Hank
Herber, Jerry Dubose, and April Fisher as Class Representatives
of
the Classes that they seek to represent;
-- appointing Sergei Lemberg, Stephen Taylor, and Joshua Markovits
of
Lemberg Law, LLC as Class Counsel;
-- denying certification of Plaintiffs' proposed New York Class;
and
-- denying certification of subclasses as to the express warranty
claims.
Kia Motors operates as an automobile dealer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tof4Cd at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA JIN-WOLFSON, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LAFAYETTE
COLLEGE, Case No. 5:23-cv-04005-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order:
(1) Certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Rule
23(a)
and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the
class defined as follows:
"All Lafayette College students whose payment obligation of
tuition and/or fees was satisfied for the Spring 2020
semester
and who were enrolled in at least one in-person on-campus
class
(the "Class")."
The definition of the class excludes students who received
full
Lafayette-funded scholarships covering all payment
obligations
for the Spring 2020 term;
(2) Appointing Plaintiff Julia Jin-Wolfson as Class
Representative;
(3) Appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter, LLP and
Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M. Alesandro of Leeds Brown
Law, P.C. as Class Counsel; and
(4) Ordering the Parties to meet-and-confer regarding the
proposed
content and methodology of a notice to the members of the
certified class as required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and to
submit
their proposal(s) for approval within fourteen (14) days of
the
Court's order.
In support thereof, Plaintiff relies upon the Memorandum and
supporting materials filed contemporaneously herewith.
Lafayette College is a private liberal arts college in Easton,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ef0GyD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins
Anthony Alesandro
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks to File Unredacted Memorandum
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA JIN-WOLFSON, v.
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, Case No. 5:23-cv-04005-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for
leave to file an unredacted version of her memorandum in support of
her motion for class certification under seal, as well as sealed
versions of Exhibits J, M, R, S, T, and Z thereto.
Contemporaneously filed with this motion, the Plaintiff is filing
her motion for class certification and supporting memorandum. The
memorandum contains references to and directly cites several
documents that Defendant has designated as "Confidential" or
"Highly Confidential" under the Order in whole or in part,
including:
a. Exhibit J, document titled Spring 2020 "Schedule of Classes"
LC_0002875-LC_0002908, which is marked Confidential;
b. Exhibit M, the deposition transcript of Defendant's 30(b)(6)
witness which is Confidential for thirty days following receipt of
the transcript, such that the parties can review it for
confidential material;
c. Exhibit R, spreadsheet containing charges and credits to student
accounts. LC_0002668, which is marked Highly Confidential;
d. Exhibit S, spreadsheet containing information related to grants
and loans received by students. LC_0002667, which is marked Highly
Confidential;
e. Exhibit T, document titled Summary of Tuition for the 2020/2021
Academic Year. LC_0002769, which is marked Highly Confidential; and
f. Exhibit Z, Plaintiff’s Expert Report of Gareth Macartney,
Ph.D., which is marked Highly Confidential.
The Court entered the parties' Protective Order in this matter on
May 16, 2024.
Lafayette College is a private liberal arts college in Easton,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYqTxS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nickc@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 23, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCK SKOV, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH
SYSTEMS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00732-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Marcia Morales Howard entered a case management and
scheduling order and referral to mediation:
Deadline for disclosing expert reports.
Plaintiff: Sept. 5, 2025
Defendant: Oct. 3, 2025
Rebuttal: Oct. 17, 2025
Deadline for completing discovery and filing Nov. 7, 2025
motions to compel:
Deadline for moving for class certification: Jan. 23, 2026
Deadline for filing dispositive and Daubert Jan. 23, 2026
motions (responses due 21 days after service):
Deadline for filing all other motions June 1, 202
including motions in limine:
Date and time of the final pretrial conference: June 22, 2026
Lakeview Health offers a variety of substance abuse treatment
programs.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uj1J1O at no extra
charge.[CC]
LAKEVIEW LOAN: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Pierson Due Oct. 31, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA PIERSON, SR., v.
LAKEVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC and MANUFACTURERS AND TRADERS TRUST
COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00521 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene
Berger entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- The amendment of any pleading and the Dec. 20,
2024
joinder of any party shall be completed
no later than:
-- The parties shall complete all discovery July 25,
2025
requests by:
-- All discovery, including disclosures Aug. 22,
2025
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2),
but not disclosures required by Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(3), shall be completed by:
-- The last date to complete depositions Sept. 12,
2025
shall be:
-- The party bearing the burden of proof on July 3, 2025
an issue shall make the disclosures of
information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(A)-(C) for that issue to all
other parties or their counsel no later
than:
-- Any motion for class certification shall Oct. 31,
2025
be filed by:
-- A combined Pretrial Conference/Final April 22,
2026
Settlement Conference, attended by all
parties and by lead trial counsel, shall
be held on:
Lakeview Loan is a mortgage loan servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=65ifsQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
LATTER-DAY SAINTS: Plaintiffs Stress Deception in Tithing Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Semerad, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that
plaintiffs suing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in
a would-be class-action lawsuit over tithing say they are not
challenging how the faith spends and manages its money.
Instead, in their latest arguments filed November in Utah's U.S.
District Court, lawyers for the nine current or disaffected church
members allege their dispute with the worldwide faith centers on a
straightforward and secular deception that need not be viewed
through a religious lens.
Church leaders solicited tithes and other donations for charitable
purposes for decades, the plaintiffs assert in newly filed briefs,
but diverted much of that cash to the church's investment arm,
Ensign Peak Advisors, where managers multiplied it into "vast
reserves" the faith sought to hide. "By actively concealing the
size of these reserves," their attorneys explain to federal Judge
Robert Shelby, "defendants fraudulently induced plaintiffs and the
class to donate more than they would have had defendants not
concealed their holdings."
The courts, they continue, "have never suggested that, 'under the
cloak of religion,' church officials may 'with impunity, commit
frauds upon the public.'" And the plaintiffs are not challenging
any Latter-day Saint teachings, their new briefs assert. Their
claims "concern purely secular representations."
The legal principle of church autonomy from legal intrusion, in
other words, doesn't apply to their fraud case, the plaintiffs
maintain, nor does it bar their action.
They cite comments attributed to Roger Clarke, president of Ensign
Peak, stating that the "reason for the cover-up of the billions of
LDS funds was so 'they never wanted to be in the position where
people felt like, you know, they shouldn't make a contribution.'"
By invoking faith as a defense, the church's legal motions opposing
the case amount to a mischaracterization, the plaintiffs say,
"setting up a paper tiger so they can knock it down." The
plaintiffs instead argue they are challenging "the deceit with
which defendants drove their solicitation of donations," not their
"prerogative to spend funds or manage their affairs."
The arguments are part of the latest exchange in a would-be
class-action case against the church and Ensign Peak that was
consolidated in April in Shelby's Salt Lake City courtroom.
The new briefs also come in response to motions in September from
the church and Ensign Peak to throw out the case, largely on
religious grounds.
Secular vs. religious
Church attorneys have argued the lawsuit and similar cases filed
over the sacred donation practice seek to breach vital barriers
that should bar legal intrusions on religious thought and church
governance. They're seeking to have the case dismissed outright.
In an array of court venues and public statements up to now, church
officials and their attorneys have firmly denied that top leaders
ever misled members on tithing, which calls for faithful members to
give 10% of their income.
Shelby has scheduled oral arguments in December on whether to
dismiss the high-profile complaint entirely or allow it to
proceed.
In addition to recovering their own donations, the suit calls for
declaring the church's financial practices illegal and ordering a
halt to tithing altogether while accountants sort through the
faith's finances or the court appoints a special monitor.
Legal briefs indicate that if Shelby approves class-action status,
the case could balloon to millions of members and former members as
plaintiffs.
In August, the judge agreed to pause any sharing of evidence, known
as discovery, until he decides whether the underlying lawsuit
should advance.
Believers vs. nonbelievers
The plaintiffs remain adamant that First Amendment protections
shielding issues of spiritual belief and church autonomy from legal
review don't bar their would-be class-action against the faith.
The current or former Latter-day Saints from five states (Utah,
Tennessee, Illinois, Washington and California) also say the church
has distorted their arguments to create the illusion of inherent
conflict among potential members of any class action, as though to
pit believers and nonbelievers against one another.
Church lawyers seem to have ignored, they say, that at least one of
the Utah plaintiffs, Masen Christensen, remains an active
Latter-day Saint.
At the same time, attorneys for the worldwide faith of 17.2 million
members have repeatedly marginalized if not derided all the
plaintiffs as "dissidents," the plaintiffs' brief contends, based
on matters of belief, when their legal action is secular.
"Nothing in the complaint remotely challenges tithing or any other
religious tenet or practice," their lawyers argue, "and tithes are
just one form of donations that are at issue. Rather, this
litigation is about defendants' lack of transparency and deceit to
induce donations through misrepresentations and concealments
regarding how donated funds were used."
Lawyers for the church and Ensign Peak "surmise" that the
plaintiffs who are no longer active in the faith "oppose its
teachings and governance," attorneys for the plaintiffs assert,
"but nothing in the complaint suggests that any plaintiff -- let
alone Mr. Christensen -- challenges them."
"This litigation is not about some individuals opposed to LDS
[doctrine] in general or tithing obligations in particular seeking
to also represent those who are not opposed," the brief states.
"Rather, these consolidated actions are, plain and simple, about
lack of accountability and outright deceit -- namely, how
defendants deceptively solicited various donations, tithes being
just one kind."
Along with tithing, their lawsuit also takes aim at what are known
as fast offerings -- once a month, devout members go without food
for 24 hours and then give the money saved by skipping those meals
to help the poor -- as well as wider solicitations on behalf of
Latter-day Saint philanthropies.
The briefs also sought to debunk the church's assertion that
certifying a class in the case would lead to the disclosure of
personal financial details of those involved, calling that argument
"hyperbolic and specious."
"Plaintiffs' claims do not focus on particular pitches made to
individual donors," they say, "but rather challenge defendants'
overarching and active concealment of Ensign's holdings and
deceptive solicitations to drive donations."
More on SEC settlement
The plaintiffs contend a 2023 settlement by the church and Ensign
Peak with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission "put an end"
to a "deliberate, decades-long, illegal concealment" of a church
portfolio of stocks and other equities estimated to have topped
$100 billion or more in value.
The SEC settlement levied $5 million in penalties against the
church and Ensign Peak for failing to properly disclose past stock
holdings and going to "great lengths" to deliberately "obscure" the
church's investment portfolio over decades.
Under the deal, Ensign Peak was ordered to pay $4 million and the
church $1 million. The SEC charged the investment firm with
essentially creating a dozen shell companies "that obscured the
church's portfolio and misstated Ensign Peak's control over the
church's investment decisions." The SEC also charged the church
with "causing these violations."
That SEC settlement "pulled back the curtain on defendants'
deceit," plaintiffs contend in their latest brief. And, like the
federal regulatory agency, those involved in the proposed class
action are seeking relief, the filing says, "without reference to
church doctrine or running afoul of the First Amendment."
n its own news release posted soon after the SEC announcement, the
church expressed its "regret" for what it described as errors and
said that "investment returns" -- not members' tithes -- would be
used to cover the settlement. [GN]
LEAD DOG: Filing for Conditional Certification Due Feb. 4, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEAD
DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN W. ECKBURG, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered consent amended
scheduling order as follows:
1. Motions to join other parties and amend the pleadings shall
be
filed no later than March 3, 2025.
2. Plaintiff shall file a Motion to Conditionally Certify a
Collective Action and Facilitate Notice no later than Feb. 4,
2025, under 29 U.S.C. section 216(B).
3. Defendants shall file their response(s) to Plaintiff's Motion
to
Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and Facilitate
Notice
no later than March 7, 2025
4. Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by
full
name, address, and telephone number each person whom
Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by March 28,
2025.
5. Discovery shall be completed no later than October 31, 2025.
6. Mediation shall be completed in this case on or before
January
16, 2026.
Lead Dog Pizza is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IlWpZd at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEAF HOME: Lirones Bid for Class Certification Due Oct. 10, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREL LIRONES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
LEAF HOME WATER SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02087-BMB (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered a case
management order as follows:
1. This case is assigned to the complex track.
2. The parties do not consent to the jurisdiction of a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
3. The pleadings shall be amended and new parties shall be
joined
on or before Dec. 16, 2024.
4. Protective Order. The parties agreed to the form protective
order set forth in Appendix L to the Local Rules and will
submit
the proposed order to the Court no later than Dec. 2, 2024.
5. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2025.
6. Expert discovery shall be completed as follows:
Report(s) for party bearing the burden of proof: July 31,
2025
Responsive report(s): Aug. 29, 2025
Expert discovery deadline: Sept. 30, 2025
7. Class certification briefing shall be completed as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification: Oct. 10, 2025
Defendant's Response in Opposition: Nov. 7, 2025
Plaintiff's Reply: Nov. 21, 2025
Leaf Home provides a variety of services, including water
filtration, water softening, water conditioning, reverse osmosis,
and UV system defense.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PxqH0v at no extra
charge.[CC]
LENDING LOVE: Foster Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MYKESHIA FOSTER, v.
LENDING LOVE LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00445-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss.), the
Hon. Judge Andrew Harris entered a case management order as
follows:
-- Defendant shall fully comply with the Nov. 12, 2024
disclosure requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 7.1 and L.U. Civ. R. 7(c) by:
-- The Plaintiff shall file her motion for Feb. 3, 2025
class certification by:
-- This action is set for jury trial Dec. 1, 2025
during a two-week term of
court beginning on:
-- All dispositive motions and July 1, 2025
Daubert-type motions challenging
another party's expert must be filed by:
-- Settlement Conference is set on: May 22, 2025
Lending Love specializes in care and daily living assistance to an
array of individuals.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sixvFA at no extra
charge.[CC]
MATCH GROUP: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) resulting from
allegations that Match Group may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Match Group securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12766 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On November 7, 2024, Investopedia published an
article entitled "Match Group Stock Slips as Fourth Quarter Outlook
Disappoints." This article said that "[s]hares of online dating
giant Match Group tumbled Thursday morning, November 14, despite a
third-quarter earnings beat released after the bell Wednesday. [. .
.] Match said Tinder Direct revenue came in below its own
expectations, as the app's monthly active users (MAUs) declined 9%
from the same time last year and its revenue per payer (RPP) grew
less than expected. Some new features tested with Tinder users in
the quarter negatively impacted subscription revenue, which the
company said will likely also have an impact on fourth quarter
revenue."
On this news, the price of Match Group stock fell by 17.8% on
November 7, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Campton Class Suit Over Sweep Program
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. CAMPTON JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, MANAGED ACCOUNT ADVISORS LLC, and BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-08629 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2024) seeks
to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct
related to the Merrill Lynch Bank Deposit Program ("MLBD Program")
and the Merrill Lynch Direct Deposit Program ("MLDD Program")
(collectively, the "Sweep Program"), by which Merrill automatically
transfers cash from its clients' investment accounts into
interest-bearing deposit accounts selected by Merrill at affiliated
financial institutions, referred to as the "Affiliate Banks."
The Defendants allegedly used the Sweep Program to generate
substantial returns for the Affiliate Banks, almost none of which
was returned to Merrill's clients in the form of reasonable
interest on their deposits. While asserting that it operates the
Sweep Program as its clients' agent, Merrill allows the Affiliate
Banks to retain nearly all the returns its clients' cash generates,
redounding to the benefit of Bank of America.
Merrill does this by offering an unreasonably low interest rate on
cash in its Sweep Program—currently between 0.01% and 0.15%
(depending on deposit program and balance) for clients who are not
enrolled in an investment advisory program—to Class members, even
as competing financial institutions offer interest rates as much as
450 times higher on their own clients' swept cash. Merrill
designed, implemented, and operated the Sweep Program to benefit
itself and Bank of America at the expense of its clients, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentations and
omissions, violation of the New York General Business Law section
349, and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiff has been a client of Merrill since 2018, when he
initially opened a Merrill Cash Management Account. Plaintiff
closed his Merrill account in December 2022.
Merrill Lynch offers investment-related products and services,
including brokerage services and discretionary and
non-discretionary investment advisory services to retail clients
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Ethan Barlieb, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
ebarlieb@ktmc.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Rd.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
kcooper@carellabyrne.com
MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Schneider Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MOUNTAINSIDE PIZZA, INC.; and BRENT HAMILL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03184-TPO (D. Colo., Nov. 15, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Schneider was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.
Mountainside Pizza, Inc is a local pizzeria in Lakewood Ranch, FL,
offering a variety of pizza options and other Italian dishes. [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
MR. COOPER GROUP: Faces Cabezas Securities Suit in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cooper Group 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 23, 2024, that on
November 3, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the company, captioned "Cabezas v. Mr. Cooper Group, Inc.," No.
23-cv-02453, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, by plaintiff Jennifer Cabezas purportedly on
behalf of a class consisting of those persons impacted by the
cybersecurity incident that occurred on October 31, 2023.
The class action complaint alleged claims for negligence,
negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, breach of
confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty based upon allegations
that the company did not employ reasonable and adequate security
measures to protect customer personal information accessed in the
cybersecurity incident. The Cabezas complaint sought damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of costs, attorney
fees and expenses, among other relief.
Mr. Cooper Group Inc., collectively with its consolidated
subsidiaries, provides servicing, origination and transaction-based
services related to single family residences throughout the United
States.
MY DEVICE INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Rosario Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MARLENE ROSARIO; and CAMRY YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MY DEVICE, INC. d/b/a
WHIZZ, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08701 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as office leads.
My Device, Inc. d/b/a Whizz is a provider of subscription-based
rental services intended to offer monthly rental of last-mile
vehicles to delivery drivers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex Rissmiller, Esq.
RISSMILLER PLLC
5 Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (646) 664-1412
Email: arissmiller@rissmiller.com
- and -
Matthew L. Berman, Esq.
VALLI KANE & VAGNINI LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7180
Facsimile: (516) 706-0248
Email: mberman@vkvlawyers.com
NAPLETON'S RIVER: Morrison Balks at Retaliation, Unpaid Final Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SONNY MORRISON, an individual, and on the behalf of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff v. NAPLETON'S RIVER OAKS MOTORS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11647 (N.D. Ill., November 12, 2024) is
a class action against the Defendant for alleged violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a service provider in
January 2024, until Plaintiff's termination on June 17, 2024.
This lawsuit arises under the FLSA for Defendant's retaliation
against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity. The lawsuit
was also brought pursuant to state law for Defendant's failure to
pay him final compensation.
Napleton's River Oaks Motors, Inc. retails automobiles. The Company
offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles,
parts, and accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and
repair services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad W. Eisenback, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (331) 307-7632
Facsimile: (630) 575-8188
E-mail: ceisenback@sulaimanlaw.com
NEW YORK TIMES: Isaacson Appeals Judgment in Moses Suit to 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC ALAN ISAACSON is taking an appeal from a court judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Maribel Moses, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The New York Times
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-4658, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant for conversion, unjust enrichment,
and violations of the Automatic Renewal Law (ARL), the Unfair
Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act in California.
On Oct. 10, 2024, Judge Ronnie Abrams entered a final approval
order and judgment in this case. The Court appointed Neal Deckant
of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
The Court designated Plaintiff Maribel Moses as the Class
Representative. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court
awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the
amount of $791,666.66. The Court also ordered payment of an
incentive award in the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff Maribel Moses.
These amounts are to be paid in the time and manner described in
the Settlement Agreement. In the event that the Final Settlement
Approval Date does not occur, the Settlement Approval Order and
Final Judgment will automatically be rendered null and void and
will be vacated; and all orders entered in connection with this,
except the Stipulation and Order regarding the Attorneys' Fees and
Costs, will be null and void.
The appellate case is captioned Moses v. New York Times Company,
Case No. 24-2979, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on November 13, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MARIBEL MOSES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Julia Kathryn Venditti, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Defendant-Appellee The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY is represented by:
Sandra Hauser, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Third Party-Appellant ERIC ALAN ISAACSON appears pro se.
NEXTERA ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Nextera Energy, Inc. (NEE) disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2024, that NEE,
along with certain current and former executives, are the named
defendants in a purported shareholder securities class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida in June 2023 that seeks from the defendants unspecified
damages allegedly resulting from alleged lack of disclosures and
misstatements regarding NEE's legal and reputational risk related
to campaign finance allegations and other political activities.
In September 2024, the class action lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. On October 16, 2024, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The alleged class of plaintiffs are all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired NEE securities between December 2,
2021 and February 1, 2023.
NextEra Energy, Inc. is an energy company with about 58 GW of
generating capacity, revenues of over $18 billion in 2020, and
about 14,900 employees throughout the US and Canada.
NIMBUS MINING: Initial Case Management Conference Set for Dec. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY SAIDNIA, v. NIMBUS
MINING LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-07792-VSB-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order setting an initial
conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 on Dec. 3, 2024,
at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York.
As previously ordered by the Hon. Vernon S. Broderick, no later
than Nov. 18, 2024, the parties shall file a Pre-Conference
Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties.
However, the Statement, which will constitute the written report
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(2), must be submitted to Judge
Moses, and must contain the following information:
Nimbus is a provider of specialized services in the mining and
metals sector.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ew5fZl at no extra
charge.[CC]
NISSAN MOTORS: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------
Abby Bowman of glassBYTEs.com reports that two years after Nissan's
initial appeal, a U.S. appellate court upheld the class action
status of an ongoing case over allegedly spontaneously shattering
sunroofs.
In 2022, a judge in a U.S. District Court in California approved
the lawsuit over allegedly defective sunroofs as a class action
suit. Nissan formally appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in November 2022.
The suit was initially filed in 2017, alleging that the sunroofs of
certain Maxima, Rogue, Pathfinder, Murano and Infiniti JX and QX60
vehicles were made from "weak" tempered glass, prone to shattering
under normal conditions. The suit also claimed that Nissan was
aware of the alleged defect.
When Nissan initially appealed the suit's class-action status, both
parties agreed to pause court proceedings until the appeal was
resolved.
In its decision, the appellate court says Nissan's arguments
against a class action weren't enough to keep the suit from going
forward as such.
"Nissan argues that there is no admissible evidence of an alleged
common design defect that increases the panoramic sunroofs'
likelihood of spontaneously shattering," the court's decision says.
"Yet . . . proof of a defect is not required to establish class
certification because that is a merits inquiry."
Instead, the court says, the plaintiffs' claims just need to be
"susceptible to common proof." Nissan also incorrectly argued that,
because "the 'vast majority' of class members 'have never had --
nor ever will have -- a broken [panoramic sunroof]'" the suit
shouldn't be class-action, the court says.
"Nissan misconstrues plaintiffs' theory of liability," says the
court.
According to the court, the plaintiffs' argument is that they and
the others who purchased vehicles with the applicable sunroofs
would have spent less money on them had they known about the
alleged defect. This qualifies the suit for class action status,
the appellate court affirms. [GN]
NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Loses Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHANDLER EMERSON, v. THE
NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00241-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered an order denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification for all classes.
The parties do not dispute that the evidence in support of all
proposed classes is the same. Thus, the ruling on certification of
one class will be dispositive on the other classes. For the reasons
stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established
commonality, adequacy, or predominance as required for class
certification under Rule 23.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff seeks to certify the following classes: Breach of
fiduciary duty and accounting: From November 10, 2019 to the
present, all irrevocable personal trusts:
(1) for which Defendant served or serve as trustee, and where
the Defendant charged a standard or base "fiduciary" or "tax
preparation" fee pursuant to Northern Trust's fee schedules
for
one or more of the covered years, and
(2) the paid preparer of the fiduciary return was Northern
Trust.
-- California UCL Class:
From November 10, 2018 to the present, all irrevocable
personal
trusts administered in California: (1) for which Defendant
served
or serve as trustee, and where Defendant charged a standard or
base "fiduciary" or "tax preparation" fee pursuant to Northern
Trust's fee schedules for one or more of the covered years, and
(2) the paid preparer of the fiduciary return was Northern
Trust.
-- Financial Elder Abuse Subclass:
Beneficiaries of the California UCL Class who are 65 years old
or
older.
The Plaintiff Chandler Emerson is a retired EMT and remainder
beneficiary of the Fallgren Trust.
Northern Trust is a financial institution that conducts business
across the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iEgprR at no extra
charge.[CC]
OUR TERMS FABRICATORS: Morocho Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO J. MOROCHO, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OUR TERMS FABRICATORS, INC. and
Jonathan Gallagher, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07849 (N.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants: (i) compensation for unpaid wages for overtime work for
which he did not receive overtime premium and (ii) liquidated
damages pursuant to the FLSA because Defendants' violations were
willful and lacked a good faith basis.
He further complains that he is entitled to recover from
Defendants: (i) back wages for overtime work for which Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff overtime premium was required by
the NYLL; (ii) compensation for Defendants' violations of the
"spread of hours" requirements of the state law; (iii) liquidated
damages pursuant to NYLL, because Defendants' violations were
willful and lacked a good faith basis; and (iv) statutory damages
for Defendants' violation of the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
Mr. Morocho was employed at Our Terms Fabricators, Inc. from 2001
to 2003, and again from 2006 until October 15, 2023 wherein his
duties include truck delivery of glass products.
Our Terms Fabricators, Inc. is a manufacturing company based in
West Babylon, New York that offers custom fabrication services for
a variety of industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
PACS GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 13
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed against PACS Group, Inc. ("PACS") (NYSE:PACS). The lawsuit is
brought on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
PACS: 1) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with PACS' April 11, 2024 initial
public offering (the "IPO"); and/or 2) securities between April 11,
2024 and November 5, 2024 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lead
plaintiff deadline is January 13, 2025.
CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
If you suffered PACS losses, you may CLICK HERE or go to:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/pacs-group-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pacs&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484)
270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
The complaint alleges that, in the Registration Statement and
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) PACS engaged in a scheme to submit false
Medicare claims which drove more than 100% of PACS' operating and
net income from 2020 - 2023; (2) the company engaged in a scheme to
bill thousands of unnecessary respiratory and sensory integration
therapies to Medicare; (3) PACS engaged in a scheme to falsify
documentation related to licensure and staffing; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:
PACSinvestors may, no later than January 13, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLPor other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages PACS investors who
have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly to
acquire more information.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE OR GO TO:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/pacs-group-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=pacs&mktm=r
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaints in this action were not filed by
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
(484) 270-1453
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
info@ktmc.com [GN]
PAPPAS OG LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Zaragoza Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE EZDRAIN ALCOCER ZARAGOZA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPPAS OG LLC; and STRATIS
MORFOGEN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08644 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Zaragoza was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
staff.
Pappas OG LLC owns and operates a restaurant in New York, New York.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
PARAGON SPORTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Andrews Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR ANDREWS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Paragon Sports, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-07887 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 13, 2024) sues the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the the Americans
with Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Paragon
Sports provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://www.paragonsports.com, the Plaintiff contends.
On Oct. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for sportswear and
decided to use the options that the Internet can offer to find a
nearby store specializing in outdoor and sportswear apparel. His
search led him to the Defendant's website. Upon visiting, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple accessibility issues that hindered
his navigation. The primary issue was that the screen reader
continuously announced content updates without any user
interaction, causing confusion, the suit says.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Paragon Sports' policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Andrews is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Paragon Sports specializes in offering products such as running
shoes, hiking boots, jackets, backpacks, camping gear, fitness
equipment, cycling gear, tennis racquets, snowboards, yoga mats,
and outdoor apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
PEAR HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Sarhadi Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KASRA SARHADI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEAR HEALTH LABS, INC., d/b/a AAPTIV,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-07921 (N.D. Cal., November 12, 2024) is
a class action suit brought against Defendant for violating the
Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Information Privacy
Act.
The Defendants own and operate Aaptiv, "an AI-powered audio and
video fitness app that creates hyper-personalized, adaptable
workout plans." Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, the
Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed its users'
personally identifiable information -- including a record of every
video viewed by the user -- and personal information entered into
the App to unrelated third parties. By doing so, Defendant violated
the VPPA and CIPA, alleges the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from Defendants' violations of the
VPPA and CIPA.
Pear Health Labs, Inc. is a health and fitness software platform
that delivers digital coaching solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
jwilner@bursor.com
PIEDMONT LITHIUM: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Sayona Mining
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Piedmont Lithium Inc. (NASDAQ: PLL), relating to the
proposed merger with Sayona Mining Limited. Under the terms of the
agreement, the transaction will result in an approximate 50% / 50%
equity holding of shareholders of Piedmont and Sayona.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/piedmont-lithium-inc-pll/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
POWERPRO SERVICE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Such Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER SUCH, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERPRO SERVICE CO., INC., FRANK NAVETTA
and BYRON NAVETTA, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07859 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking
to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to provide overtime
wages, failure to pay regular wages, failure to pay on a weekly
basis, failure to furnish with a written notice upon hire regarding
the rate of pay, and failure to provide with an accurate statement
of the wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a field service
technician from in June 2022 until September 2024.
Powerpro Service Co., Inc. services, maintains and repairs
generator systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Telephone: (631) 257-5588
E-mail: promero@romerolawny.com
PREGIS LLC: Appeals Court Order in Bazinett NYLL Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PREGIS LLC is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Lori Bazinett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pregis LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-00790, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of New York.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, is brought against the Defendant for failure
to timely pay wages in violation of the New York Labor Law.
On Mar. 14, 2024, Judge Mae A. D'Agostino denied the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case.
On Mar. 25, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to amend and certify
the March 14 Order for interlocutory appeal, which Judge D'Agostino
granted on Oct. 24, 2024. The Court further orders that the
Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this
Memorandum-Decision and Order to move the Second Circuit to accept
the appeal; and that the Defendant's request to stay this case
pending the Second Circuit's declination to accept the appeal or
resolution of the interlocutory appeal is granted.
The appellate case is captioned Pregis LLC v. Bazinett, Case No.
24-2891, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, filed on November 5, 2024. [BN]
Defendant-Petitioner PREGIS LLC is represented by:
Robert M. Tucker, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
599 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
PRODIGAL COMPANY: Court Dismisses Fiorito Federal Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL FIORITO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
PRODIGAL COMPANY, Case No. 0:24-cv-03757-PJS-TNL (D. Minn.), the
Hon. Judge Patrick Schiltz entered an order that:
1. All federal claims in plaintiff's complaint are dismissed as
follows:
a. Plaintiff's claim for misclassification as an independent
contractor is dismissed with prejudice.
b. Plaintiff's claims for "pension and retirement coverage"
and
"health and insurance coverage" under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), are dismissed with prejudice.
c. Plaintiff's claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act,
and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights
Act, are dismissed without prejudice.
d. Plaintiff's claims for overtime and minimum-wage
compensation
under the FLSA are dismissed without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's collective-action and class-action allegations,
made
on behalf of other workers similarly situated, are dismissed
without prejudice.
3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c), the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law
claims, and those claims are dismissed without prejudice.
4. Plaintiff's IFP Application is denied as moot.
Mr. Fiorito brings this action against defendant The Prodigal
Company, for whom he used to work, alleging that Prodigal failed to
pay Fiorito (and others) minimum-wage and overtime compensation and
failed to offer them a range of benefits in violation of the FLSA.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nH2oVh at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROFESSIONAL TOWING: Can't File Multiple Dispositive Bids, Ct. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kevin Barrett, v.
Professional Towing and Recovery LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-02025-ROS
(D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn Silver entered an order denying
Defendant's motion to permit more than one dispositive motion.
Because the Defendant failed to show good cause, the Motion is
denied, Judge Silver says:
The Plaintiff is correct that "full discovery on the merits of
Defendant's affirmative defense and its application to the class or
collective necessarily requires discovery applicable to the full
class or collective that would be obtained leading up to and
following certification."
Further, it would be a waste of judicial resources to needlessly
adjudicate multiple dispositive motions on a piecemeal basis. This
is especially true when the Exemption defense would have no bearing
on Plaintiff's remaining five claims. However, Defendant may raise
the Exemption defense at the class certification stage or after
close of discovery in a motion for summary judgment.
Professional Towing and Recovery offers towing and roadside
assistance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HjR87U at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Gondola Sues Over Denial of Insurance Coverage
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lurah Lowery of Repairer Driven News reports that a Massachusetts
woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Progressive Direct
Insurance Co. over the alleged denial of collision and
comprehensive auto insurance coverage.
The complaint was filed November 4 in Suffolk County Superior
Court. It alleges unfair and deceptive business practices.
Under state law, there are only six situations in which insurers
can refuse collision coverage.
Although Danielle Gondola and her vehicles failed to meet any of
the stipulations she was denied first-party physical damage
(collision and comprehensive).
Progressive maintained that it refused to offer collision coverage
due to a "binding restriction," according to the complaint.
"However, Progressive never articulated the lawful basis for this
'binding restriction' and how it could, as a matter of law,
supersede statutory authority to the contrary and deprive a
Massachusetts consumer of the statutory protections mandated by the
legislature," the complaint states.
Three weeks after buying her auto insurance policy from
Progressive, Gondola was involved in a three-vehicle collision that
totaled her vehicle. Progressive denied the claim.
"Progressive has implemented a systemic, pre-determined refusal to
offer optional automobile insurance coverages due to a so-called
'binding restriction' that runs counter to established
Massachusetts law that limits the circumstances under which an
insurer can refuse to offer optional coverages," the complaint
states. "This has caused Massachusetts insured drivers to
involuntarily forego desired coverages."
It added that Progressive also misrepresented to its customers that
it has no duty to offer optional coverages.
In June and July, Gondola served Progressive with demand letters
for herself and on behalf of a putative class. According to the
complaint, Progressive has "failed to respond with a reasonable
offer of settlement" so the class action lawsuit was filed. The
class includes all Massachusetts Progressive Direct Insurance Co.
customers who weren't given the chance to purchase optional
insurance coverage due to a binding restriction from Nov. 4 2020 to
the date of the complaint filing, Nov. 4, 2024.
As of Friday, November 15, Progressive hadn't filed any documents
in Suffolk Superior Court related to the case.
A jury trial is demanded and relief includes actual, statutory, and
treble damages but a dollar amount isn't specified.
Despite incurring $563 million of catastrophic losses related to
Hurricane Helene hitting the Southeast earlier this fall,
Progressive reports that its Q3 profit doubled, according to a
September earnings report released Oct. 15.
Progressive's net income increased to $2.33 billion ($3.97 per
share) from the $1.12 billion ($1.89 per share) reported in Q3
2023.
Insurance Business magazine reports that Progressive reported an
increase of nearly 1.6 million in-force policies and record
spending on advertising in Q3 2024. And in 2023, Progressive was
among the top five auto insurers in Massachusetts, holding a 7.93%
share of direct premiums written, according to Insurance Business.
In March 2023, a federal judge partially dismissed a Massachusetts
class action lawsuit against Progressive that alleged
undervaluation of total loss vehicles.
Plaintiff Hayley Martorana alleged in the 2022 suit that
Progressive Direct, through Mitchell International, uses valuation
reports to determine actual cash value of total loss vehicles and
"systemically thumbs the scale" when reaching its values by
applying "'Projected Sold Adjustments' [PSAs] that are: (a)
deceptive and unexplained; (b) contrary to appraisal standards and
methodologies; (c) not based in fact, as they are contrary to the
used car industry's market pricing and inventory management
practices; (d) not applied by the major competitor [CCC Intelligent
Solutions] of Defendant's vendor Mitchell; and (e) on information
and belief, not applied by Defendant and Mitchell to insureds in
other states like California and Washington."
The judge dismissed allegations that the state's Consumer
Protection Act was violated and a dispute between the parties on
the plaintiffs' coverage rights as policyholders wasn't settled.
The parties agreed to dismiss the remaining allegations in the suit
in February of this year.
Earlier this year, Progressive settled a similar case filed in New
York for $48 million.
The plaintiffs alleged Progressive breached the provision of their
insurance contract that states actual cash value (ACV) "is
determined by the market value, age, and condition" of a vehicle at
the time of loss by applying Projected Sold Adjustments (PSA).
The suit claims Progressive "systemically thumbs the scale" against
claimants by applying PSAs that reduce the base values of
comparable vehicles that are used to calculate the ACV of
claimants' total loss vehicles. [GN]
PROPER HOSPITALITY: Fails to Pay Servers' Minimum Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE ESPINALES, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. PROPER HOSPITALITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, and IMCMV
HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08599 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 13, 2024)
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, and unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of
requiring the Plaintiff (and all similarly situated employees) to
work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying them appropriate
minimum wage and overtime compensation as required by federal and
state laws. Throughout Ms. Espinales's employment, the Defendants
purportedly applied a tip credit towards the minimum wage paid to
her for work performed as a server, the suit claims.
The Defendants regularly required the Plaintiff to work greater
than twenty percent of her workweek, doing non-tipped work such as
bussing and food running and tasks related to closing down the
restaurant such as cleaning tables, stacking chairs, and cleaning
side stations. Additionally, the Defendants regularly required the
Plaintiff to work greater than thirty continuous minutes of her
shift doing non-tipped work such as closing down the restaurant,
the suit says.
As a result, the Defendants do not satisfy the requirements under
the FLSA and NYLL by which they could apply a tip credit to the
hourly rates paid to Espinales, and the Defendants have failed to
compensate her at the proper minimum and overtime wage rate.
Ms. Espinales was employed by the Defendants as a server from
November 2023 until July 2024.
Proper Hospitality Solutions is a hotel hospitality management
company located in the heart of Manhattan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Tannenbaum, Esq.
580 Fifth Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 457-1699
PUBLIX SUPER: Roberts Renewed Conditional Status Bid Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS,
CAITLIN THROCKMORTON, BRANDY MOORE, CARTER HUBBS, and JESSICA
SCHAFER individually on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Case No.
8:23-cv-02447-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William Jung
entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional certification of
FLSA
collective action and notice to potential opt–in
Plaintiffs, is
denied.
2. Publix's notices of Objection, are denied as moot.
3. The Court finds the Plaintiffs' original motion for
conditional
certification, is moot.
The Court finds the tens of thousands of potential Plaintiffs
located throughout the Southeastern United States are not
"similarly situated" via a common policy or plan that violates the
FLSA.
Put simply, the Court is not making a merits determination; it is
assessing whether Plaintiffs are "similarly situated" enough for
conditional certification. The Court exercises its discretion and
denies certification of a collective action under the FLSA.
The Named Plaintiffs are all former Publix employees who either
worked as hourly non-exempt Department Managers (DMs) or Assistant
Department (ADMs) Managers for Publix Super Markets.
The Named Plaintiffs assert, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, that the Defendant violated the FLSA by
subjecting DMs/ADMs to common policies and practices which required
them to work off-the-clock without being paid overtime.
Publix is a regional supermarket chain with 1,377 locations across
eight states.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2uil7B at no extra
charge.[CC]
REAL AUTO: Calle and Cardenas Seek Proper Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUSTAVO CALLE and DANIEL CARDENAS, Plaintiffs v. REAL AUTO
DETAILING, CORP doing business as TASCA CENTRAL AVE HYUNDAI, and
SALVADOR QUIROZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08581
(S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2024) is a class action seeking
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, spread of hours pay,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants and failed to pay the Plaintiffs his
lawful overtime pay for that period from April 2023 until October
4, 2024, and January 2022 until August 2024. Throughout his
employment term with the Defendants, Plaintiff Calle was not also
compensated with the appropriate minimum wage. In addition, the
Defendants did not allow him to record his hours worked, further
violating labor laws, says the suit.
Real Auto Detailing, Corp. offers car detailing services in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
REDWIRE CORP: Removes Yingling Suit to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of NICHOLAS YINGLING, derivatively on
behalf of Nominal Defendant REDWIRE CORPORATION, Plaintiff v.
REDWIRE CORPORATION; PETER CANNITO; LES DANIELS; REGGIE BROTHERS;
JOANNE ISHAM; KIRK KONERT; JONATHAN E. BALIFF; and JOHN S. BOLTON,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the District
of Delaware (Case No. 1:22-cv-00684) to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida on Nov. 4, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Middle District of Florida assigned Case
No. 3:24-cv-01172-BJD-LLL. The case is assigned to Brian J. Davis
and referred to Magistrate Laura Lothman Lambert.
Redwire Corp. operates as a space infrastructure company. The
Company offers mission critical space solutions and high
reliability components. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Herbert W. Mondros, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
hwm@rl-legal.com
REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Class Cert. Bid Extended to Jan. 6, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS,
L.L.C., v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No.
4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John Ross entered an
order that the deadline for Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is extended from Nov. 4, 2024, to Jan. 6, 2025.
-- The Defendants shall respond by March 3, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff shall reply by March 31, 2025.
On November 7, 2024, the Court held a teleconference with counsel
for the parties to resolve a disagreement regarding the amount of
additional time reasonably needed for Plaintiff to file its motion
for class certification.
The Plaintiff requests five months to conduct further discovery.
Defendants dispute the necessity of any such extension but do not
oppose an extension of 30 days.
The Court is mindful of the duration of this case and desires to
advance it. While not entirely persuaded that the discovery
Plaintiff seeks is essential to class certification, out of
caution, the Court will grant a modest extension of 60 days.
Republic provides non-hazardous solid waste collection, transfer,
and disposal services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IHtkMt at no extra
charge.[CC]
REVELETTE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Volpe Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE VOLPE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REVELETTE ENTERPRISES, LLC; REVELETTE
HOSPITALITY, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE HOLDCO, LLC; ARJN, LLC; ARJN
#3, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE - GREEN HILLS, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE -
HENDERSONVILLE, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE - SPRING HILL, LLC;
JONATHAN'S GRILLE - MURFREESBORO, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE -
PROVIDENCE, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE - EAST RIDGE, LLC; JONATHAN'S
GRILLE - CLIFT FARMS, LLC; JONATHAN'S GRILLE - GALLATIN, LLC; THE
RUTLEDGE RESTAURANT, LLC; THE RUTLEDGE - FOUR SEASONS NASHVILLE,
LLC; MASON REVELETTE; and CURTIS REVELETTE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00100 (M.D. Tenn., Nov. 14, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Volpe was employed by the Defendants first as a server,
at the Defendants' Jonathan's Grille Spring Hill, Tennessee
restaurant, and later as a general manager at the Defendants'
Jonathan's Grille Clift Farms, Alabama restaurant.
Revelette Enterprises, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in
Tennessee and Alabama. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Garrison, Esq.
Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
Nicole A. Chanin, Esq.
BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &
GARRISON, PLLC
200 31st Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 244-2202
Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
nchanin@barrettjohnston.com
REVIVE SUPPLEMENTS: Crumwell Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REVIVE SUPPLEMENTS LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08583 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner
compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website,
including on November 7, 2024 and the last occurring on November 8,
2024, in an attempt to purchase Vitamins K2 & D3 from Defendant and
to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered
multiple access barriers that include broken links and pictures
without alternate attributes. 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.
Reviv Supplements LLC owns and maintains the website,
https://revivesups.com/, which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including information about
Defendant's: vitamins and supplements, 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: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
RHODE ISLAND: Fails to Offer Treatment for Medicaid-Eligible Youth
------------------------------------------------------------------
J."E."L., by and through their next friend, PATRICIA BYRNES;
A."T."C., by and through his next friends, D.T. and P.T.; L.A., by
and through her next friend, R.X.; E.M., by and through her next
friend, C.M.; D.R.V., by and through her next friend, A.R.V.; J.C.,
by and through his next friend, C.C.; J.L.A., by and through his
next friend, R.X.; J.S.A., by and through his next friend, R.X.;
K.A., by and through her next friend, R.X.; and A.C., by and
through her next friends, K.C. and R.C., each individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RICHARD CHAREST, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN SERVICES, and ASHLEY DECKERT, in her official capacity as
Director of the DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00471 (D.R.I., Nov. 13, 2024) seeks to remedy Rhode
Island's long-standing and well-documented failure to provide or
arrange for treatment for Medicaid-eligible children and youth with
significant behavioral health needs.
The Defendants' failure to build an adequate behavioral health
system for children and youth violates the Early and Periodic
Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment and "reasonable promptness"
provisions of the Medicaid Act, as well as the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, the suit contends.
The Defendants' ongoing failures harm Rhode Island's children and
youth every day. Thus, the Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive
relief requiring the Defendants to provide the medically necessary
Intensive Home and Community-Based Services to which Named
Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled under federal law,
and to end and prevent their unnecessary institutionalization in
hospitals and congregate care settings, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs are Medicaid-eligible children and youth with a
serious emotional disturbance, including SED and co-occurring
developmental disabilities, who are being denied medically
necessary Intensive Home and Community-Based Services required
under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment
provisions of the Medicaid Act.
Executive Office of Health and Human Services serves as "the
principal agency of the executive branch of state government."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristine L. Sullivan, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS RHODE ISLAND
220 Toll Gate Road, Suite A
Warwick, RI 02886
Telephone: (401) 831-3150
Facsimile: (401) 274-5568
E-mail: ksullivan@drri.org
- and -
Samantha Bartosz, Esq.
Aarti Iyer, Esq.
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
88 Pine Street, Suite 800
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 683-2210
E-mail: sbartosz@childrensrights.org
aiyer@childrensrights.org
- and -
Lynette Labinger, Esq.
COOPERATING COUNSEL, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF RHODE
ISLAND
128 Dorrance St., Box 710
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 465-9565
E-mail: ll@labingerlaw.com
SACRAMENTO MOTORCARS: Faces Baes Class Suit in Cal. Super.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sacramento Motorcars, LLC.
The case is captioned as MARIA BAES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SACRAMENTO MOTORCARS
LLC dba NISSAN OF ELK GROVE, dba MAZDA OF ELK GROVE, dba ELK GROVE
CUSTOM, and dba QUICK LUBE; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and Does 1
through 50, Defendants, Case No. 24CV019978 (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 2, 2024). The case is assigned to Jill H.
Talley.
Sacramento Motorcars, LLC operates as a car dealer. The Company
offers new and used vehicles, as well as provides maintenance,
accessories, and vehicle financing services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason Dodge, Esq.
450 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 840
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 962-6465
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Sargent Appeals Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERICE SARGENT, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Sherice Sargent, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. School District of
Philadelphia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2-22-cv-01509, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
alleges that the School District, along with the other named
defendants in this case, all of whom are either on the Board of
Education for the School District or are employed by the School
District, specifically revised the admissions process to give
preference to students on the basis of their race or on the basis
of their residence in zip codes that were selected because of their
racial composition.
On June 6, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which Judge Chad F. Kenney granted on Oct. 11, 2024.
The court held that following discovery, the record has only
confirmed that the changes to the admissions process were
race-blind, both in their motivation, and in their application.
Therefore, despite Plaintiffs' apparent pivot away from the
Indicator, there is no genuine dispute on either the discriminatory
impact or purpose prong. Accordingly, the changes are subject only
to rational basis review, and, under that test, the changes in the
admissions process pass constitutional muster.
The appellate case is captioned Sherice Sargent, et al. v. School
District of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 24-3112, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November
13, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants SHERICE SARGENT, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
James J. Fitzpatrick, III, Esq.
Walter S. Zimolong, III, Esq.
ZIMOLONG
P.O. Box 552
Villanova, PA 19085
Telephone: (215) 665-0842
- and -
Gene Hamilton, Esq.
AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION
611 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 231
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 964-3721
- and -
Jonathan F. Mitchell, Esq.
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 686-3940
Defendants-Appellees SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. are
represented by:
William K. Kennedy, II, Esq.
MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS
1735 Market Street, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 772-7291
- and -
Lynn R. Rauch, Esq.
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA
440 N. Broad Street, Suite 313
Philadelphia, PA 19130
Telephone: (215) 400-6742
- and -
Renee N. Smith, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS
1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 319-7802
SELENE FINANCE: Clerk Must Unseal Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, KATRINA
MARTIN, and ROBERT ALLAN MARTIN individually and behalf of others
similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No.
2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen Cannon entered
an order directing the clerk of Court to unseal Plaintiff's
memorandum of law in support of motion to certify class and
"Exhibit A."
"Exhibit A" is a transcript of the deposition of Defendant's
corporate representative, Nik Fox.
The parties requested redaction of information in these filings of
what they described as:
(1) "confidential portions of the Deposition Transcript because
they contain detailed discussions of Selene's internal
proprietary systems, applications, and processes"; and
(2) "confidential detailed information discussed in the
Deposition
Transcript regarding Selene's finances".
The Court granted the Renewed Motion in part, directing the parties
to refile the entirety of Plaintiff's "Exhibit A" publicly and in
partially redacted form.
The Court permitted the filings at issue to remain under seal
"subject to closer review of the redacted material versus the
sealed exhibit."
This putative class action is brought by a group of residential
mortgage holders asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act ("FCCPA") against Defendant.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify two proposed classes consisting of
thousands of residential mortgage holders whose loans were serviced
by Defendant and who allegedly suffered harm as a result of
Defendant's misleading and/or threatening debt collection
practices.
Selene is a mortgage loan servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XrNzNE at no extra
charge.[CC]
SELENE FINANCE: Remaining Deadlines & Hearings Cancelled
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Argona, et al., v. Selene
Finance, LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting
joint motion for extension of dispositive motion deadline.
-- All remaining deadlines and hearings, including trial and
calendar
call, are canceled pending resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The nature of suit states Consumer Credit.
Selene is a full-service residential mortgage loan servicer.[CC]
SELIP & STYLIANOU: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Dec. 19
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMAINE v. SELIP &
STYLIANOU, LLP, Case No. 2:20-cv-00156-BRM-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon.
Judge James Clark entered an order extending filing of summary
judgment and class certification to Nov. 18, 2024.
-- Opposition due by Dec. 19, 2024
-- Replies due by Jan. 2, 2025
Selip & Stylianou operates as a law firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7WwnLX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Hersch, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE C. HERSH
17 Sylvan St., Suite 102b
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Telephone: (201) 507-6300
Facsimile: (201) 507-6311
E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com
SET FORTH: Fails to Protect Consumers' Info, Bradley Says
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SET FORTH, INC. and CENTREX SOFTWARE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-11691 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 13, 2024) is a class action arising
from Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data.
On May 21, 2024, the Defendants was hacked in the Data Breach.
Because of the data breach, at least the following types of
personal identifiable information were compromised: "names, Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, and addresses."
The suit contends that cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendants' systems because the Defendants failed to adequately
train their employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain
reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's
PII. In total, the Defendants injured at least 1,500,000
persons—via the exposure of their PII—in the Data Breach. These
1,500,000 persons include their current and former consumers. And
yet, the Defendants waited over until Nov. 8, 2024, before they
began notifying the class—a full 171 days after the Data Breach
began, says the suit.
The Plaintiff suffered imminent and impending injury arising from
the substantially increased risk of fraud, misuse, and identity
theft—all because Defendants' Data Breach placed Plaintiff's PII
right in the hands of criminals, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff has already suffered from identity theft and fraud
when cybercriminals used the Plaintiff's PII to sign up for a
subscription in September 2024. The Plaintiff has spent—and will
continue to spend—significant time and effort monitoring his
accounts to protect himself from identity theft, the suit adds.
Mr. Bradley is unsure how or why Defendants obtained—and then
exposed—his PII. He received a Notice of Data Breach on Nov. 8,
2024.
Set Forth provides cloud-based customer relationship management
(CRM) solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago IL, 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
SEVENTH GENERATION: Butler Sues Over Laundry Detergents' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SEVENTH GENERATION, INC., Case No.
5:24-cv-02420 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 13, 2024) is a consumer protection
action that seeks to remedy Defendant's deceptive business
practices which mislead customers about the amount of uses they are
getting out of the Defendant's Seventh Generation laundry detergent
products, including Defendant's EasyDose, Clean with Purpose, and
Power+ brands.
The Defendant prominently represents its laundry detergent products
sold under its Seventh Generation EasyDose brand as "ultra
concentrated" laundry detergent containing enough detergent to wash
"66 loads" of laundry. Reasonable consumers interpret "66 loads" to
mean 66 full loads of laundry (instead of half-loads). This is
reinforced by the rear label which states in bold letters that "1
squeeze = 1 load," the suit says.
However, the EasyDose Products do not contain 66 full loads worth
of detergent. A disclosure is (1) hidden on a peelable flap on the
back of the bottle which is difficult to peel back and then
requires the consumer to (2) flip the peeled back label upside down
to see that it takes two squeezes for a full load of laundry. Two
squeezes amount to only 33 loads of laundry detergent per bottle.
No reasonable consumer would see this disclosure before purchasing
the EasyDose Products. Further, when following the EasyDose
Product's instructions, the EasyDose cap was found to measure
between 0.39 to 0.67 fluid ounces per squeeze, and therefore only
provides 34 to 59 medium loads of laundry per bottle, and not 66
loads as advertised, the Plaintiff adds.
The Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's advertising when
purchasing the EasyDose Product and was damaged as a result. The
Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated consumers to remedy Defendant's unlawful acts.
In 2023, the Plaintiff purchased the EasyDose (TM) Power+ (TM)
Ultra Concentrated Laundry Detergent Product at a retail store in
in Orange County, California.
The Defendant manufactures and sells laundry detergent under its
EasyDose brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lilach H. Klein, Esq.
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com
craig@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
SPENCER GIFTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spencer Gifts LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-04181 (D. Minn.,
Nov. 13, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's website
(www.spencersonline.com) is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations.
The suit says that, as a consequence of the Plaintiff's experience
visiting the Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and
from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found
the Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny
screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important
Website content – content the Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the
Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the
Minnesota Human Rights Act).
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
Ms. Dalton is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
Spencer offers clothing, lifestyle, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, seasonal items, tee shirts, body
jewelry, décor, drinkware, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.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.
The Court finds the Settlement Class should be certified at this
stage for the purposes of this Settlement, as the Settlement Class
meets all certification requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 for a settlement class.
The Settlement Class is certified for settlement purposes only,
subject to the Court’s final consideration at the Final Fairness
Hearing.
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" 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.
The Court appoints JND Legal Administration to act as Settlement
Administrator and perform the associated responsibilities set forth
in the Settlement Agreement.
This is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs Marvin B.
Dinsmore and Sheridan Downey, III, as Administrators of the Estate
of David D. Dinsmore for the alleged failure to pay statutory
interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the
Production Revenue Standards Act (the "PRSA") for royalty and
overriding royalty oil-and-gas production proceeds from wells in
Oklahoma.
Staghorn Petroleum provides oil and gas production services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fHK44J 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
SUBURBAN FURNITURE: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFONSO HARRELL, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUBURBAN FURNITURE CORP., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-10447 (D.N.J., November 12, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to
Plaintiff and similarly situated legally blind individuals, which
violates the effective communication and equal access requirements
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suit alleges that the Defendant's website,
https://suburbanfurniture.com is not equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. The access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn
about the services at Suburbanfurniture.com prior to entering
Defendant's physical location.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Suburban Furniture Corp. operates the website online retail store
and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New Jersey
and throughout the United States.[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
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Montgomery Files False Ad Suit Over Sandwiches
------------------------------------------------------------------
LaGARRIS MONTGOMERY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06048 (E.D. Pa., November 12, 2024) is
a class action to remedy various violations of law in connection
with Defendant's marketing, advertising, and selling of Subway's
Steak and Cheese Sandwiches.
According to the complaint, Subway uses photographs in its
advertisements that make it appear that the Steak & Cheese sandwich
contains at least 200% more meat than the actual sandwiches that
customers receive. Subway explicitly states in one advertisement,
"A Steak & Cheese sandwich with lots of steak smothered in melted
cheese." Subway's advertisements for the product are unfair and
financially damaging to consumers, including Plaintiff, as they are
receiving a product that is materially lower in value than what is
being represented, says the suit.
Subway Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a chain of restaurants.
The Company offers salads, beverages, sandwiches, burgers, wraps,
and desserts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com
paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Seeks to Seal Portions of Memorandum
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file under seal portions of its memorandum of law in support of its
second amended motion for class certification and the declaration
of Charles Kopel.
Premera's Memorandum of Law in Support summarizes and/or quotes
documents that have been designated as "Confidential," and thus,
are subject to the stipulated protective order entered in this
case. The Declaration of Charles Kopel filed in support of the
Second Amended Motion appends Exhibits 1-5 and 8-10, which have
been designated as Confidential.
Premera requests permission to file under seal the redacted
portions of its Memorandum of Law in Support.
Premera requests permission to file under seal fully redacted
versions of Exhibits 1-5 and 8-10 to the Declaration of Charles
Kopel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z3JTZb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: FWK Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC et al v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:21-cv-11057-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class;
(2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel;
(3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and
(4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3idCWu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: PBC Seeks to Seal Portions of Memorandum
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross, v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al. (re Amitiza Antitrust
Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to
file under seal portions of its memorandum of law in support of its
second amended motion for class certification and the declaration
of Charles Kopel.
Premera's Memorandum of Law in Support summarizes and/or quotes
documents that have been designated as "Confidential," and thus,
are subject to the stipulated protective order entered in this
case. The Declaration of Charles Kopel filed in support of the
Second Amended Motion appends Exhibits 1-5 and 8-10, which have
been designated as Confidential.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5z09eh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Premera Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al.( RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying a Damages Class and an Unjust Enrichment Class;
(2) appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel;
(3) designating Premera Blue Cross as Class Representative; and
(4) granting such other and further relief as the Court deems
just
and proper.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3FJpPn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
Renee Nolan, Esq.
Charles Kopel, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
E-mail: PStPhillip@lowey.com
URabinovitz@lowey.com
RNolan@lowey.com
CKopel@lowey.com
- and -
Scott J. Tucker, Esq.
William J. Fidurko, Esq.
TUCKER, DYER & O'CONNELL, LLP
199 Wells Avenue
Newton, MA 02459
Telephone: (617) 986-6226
- and -
Courtney Finerty-Stelzner, Esq.
GETNICK & GETNICK LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (212) 376-5666
E-mail: cfinertystelzner@getnicklaw.com
TARGET CORP: Halley Appeals Denied Class Cert. Bid to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CORBIN HALLEY is taking an appeal from a court order denying his
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Corbin Halley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-00692-JGB-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California in and for
the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, is brought against the
Defendant for violations of California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code.
On May 29, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Jesus G. Bernal denied on Oct. 25, 2024. The Court
finds the Plaintiff's derivative claims as inappropriate for class
certification.
The appellate case is captioned Halley v. Target Corporation, Case
No. 24-6831, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on November 12, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner CORBIN HALLEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Edward Wonkyu Choi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and -
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
515 South Figueroa, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Defendant-Respondent TARGET CORPORATION is represented by:
Anna M. Skaggs, Esq.
Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
101 California Street, 48th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
TAYLOR FRESH: Keene Sues Over E. Coli Contaminated Onions
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gennaro, writing for Courthouse News Service reports that
Trevor Keene thought he was enjoying a routine lunch when he bit
into a McDonald's quarter pounder cheeseburger in October. Instead,
it turned into a health crisis that left him battling E. coli
poisoning -- and now, a legal fight.
On Thursday, November 14, Keene, a resident of New Mexico, filed a
class-action against Taylor Fresh Foods, a Salinas,
California-based farm, in California federal court. Keen claims
that Taylor Fresh Foods' contaminated onions triggered an outbreak
tied to the fast-food giant, which has led to over 100 infections,
34 hospitalizations and one death to this point.
In his complaint, Keene claims that he became ill and developed
symptoms of E. coli infection shortly after eating a McDonald's
quarter pounder on Oct. 21.
"Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to
know, that the products purchased were contaminated with E. coli,"
Keene said in his complaint. "Consumers expect the food they
purchase to be safe for consumption and not contaminated by harmful
bacteria, which can cause a serious infection. Other manufacturers
formulate, produce, and sell non-harmful foods including onions,
which is evidence that the risk inherent with defendant's products
is demonstrably avoidable."
E. coli is a bacteria found in the environment, food, water and the
bodies of humans and animals, according to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. People infected with E. coli may suffer
from diarrhea, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis and
more. Serious infections can cause severe bloody diarrhea and lead
to life-threatening conditions, such as a type of kidney failure
called hemolytic uremic syndrome or the development of high blood
pressure, chronic kidney disease and neurological problems, the CDC
says.
The infection is most likely to be more serious for elderly people
and children as well as those with weakened immune systems.
Keen said that because there is a safety-related deficiency in the
onions, Taylor Fresh Foods was under a continuous duty to disclose
to Keene and other consumers that the onions were contaminated
because Taylor Fresh Foods, as the owner, manufacturer, marketer
and seller of the onions, had exclusive and superior knowledge
concerning the composition and condition of the onions.
"Defendant willfully and knowingly omitted material information
regarding the quality and safety of the products as discussed
herein. Defendant countenanced these material omissions to boost or
maintain sales of the product, and to create a false assurance that
prolonged loyalty to defendant's brand--the continued consumption
of the product -- would not place consumers in danger," Keene's
complaint says.
Keene is seeking to certify the class and enjoin Taylor Fresh Foods
from selling or otherwise distributing the products until it can
prove that the onions are safe, and is also requesting restitution
from Taylor Fresh Foods, claiming it was unjustly enriched by
selling the tainted products to consumers.
As reports of consumers falling ill after eating the quarter
pounder gained steam in late October, McDonald's began
investigating. By Oct. 30, the Center for Disease Control issued an
update stating that the slivered onions on the quarter pounders
were the likely source of contamination and Taylor Fresh Foods
began recalling its onion products.
Keene's lawyer did not respond to requests for comment, and Taylor
Fresh Foods also did not respond to a similar request before this
story was published. [GN]
TEAM DISCOVERY: Jackson Seeks Conditional Status of OT Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ACACSHA JACKSON,
Individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. TEAM
DISCOVERY, LLC, LAURENCE TRIMBLE, and TREVOR TRIMBLE, Case No.
2:24-cv-00399-BHL (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order conditionally certifying the following Overtime
Collective:
"All persons who have been employed as caregivers by Team
Discovery, LLC, at any time during the past three years and who
worked more than 40 hours in at least one workweek during the
past
three years."
The Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter an order:
-- Appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C. as Collective Counsel;
-- Approving the form and content of the proposed notice as
timely,
accurate, and informative, and otherwise appropriate;
-- Directing Collective Counsel to send the approved notice to the
Overtime Collective by mail, email, and text message within 14
days of receipt of receiving the collective members' contact
information from Defendants;
-- Directing Collective Counsel to send the approved notice via
email
and text message to Overtime Collective members who have not
yet
submitted a consent to join form halfway through the notice
period;
-- Prohibiting the Defendants from communicating with Overtime
Collective members about this lawsuit in any way from the date
of
the Court's order on this motion through the close of the
notice
period other than to direct inquiring Overtime Collective
members
to contact Collective Counsel as set forth in the approved
notice;
-- Directing the Defendants to provide Collective Counsel with a
list
identifying all persons known to Defendants to meet the
Overtime
Collective definition, including their first names, last names,
last known street addresses, city, state, zip code, phone
numbers,
email addresses, dates of employment, and last four digits of
social security numbers in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with
each piece of data as a separate column, within 10 days of the
Court's order granting this motion;
-- Permitting Overtime Collective members 60 days from the first
sending of the approved notice to opt into this lawsuit; and
Team Discovery is a licensed Adult Family Home in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KZ5vIq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Connor J. Clegg, Esq.
Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
5150 N. Port Washington Rd., Suite 243
Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
Telephone: (414) 271-8650
Facsimile: (414) 607-6079
E-mail: cclegg@hq-law.com
ljohnson@hq-law.com
THOMPSON COBURN: Duran Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thompson Coburn, LLP,
et al. The case is styled as Denise Sandoval Duran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thompson Coburn,
LLP, Presbyterian Healthcare Services, Case No. 4:24-cv-01518 (E.D.
Mo., Nov. 13, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Breach of Contract.
Thompson Coburn LLP -- https://www.thompsoncoburn.com/ -- provides
practical and economical solutions to clients' business demands and
legal challenges across more than 50 areas of law.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, M.R. Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
M.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-01536 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 15, 2024) seeks to hold the Defendant
responsible for the harms caused to the Plaintiff and over 305,000
similarly situated persons 1 (collectively, the "Class" or "Class
Members" or "Breach Victims") in a massive and preventable data
breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff's and
Class Member's sensitive and private personal
information—entrusted to Defendant, its officials, and
agents—was compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to
the Data Breach. The personally identifiable information ("PII")
and personal health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private
Information") compromised in the Data Breach includes names, social
security numbers, dates of birth, medical record number, patient
account number, prescription and treatment information, clinical
information, medical provider information, and health insurance
information.
As a result of the Defendant's failure to safeguard the Breach
Victims' Private Information, hackers gained access to sensitive
data that could enable them to carry out various forms of identity
theft, jeopardizing the financial and personal lives of hundreds of
thousands of individuals, says the suit.
Thompson Coburn LLP operates a law firm. The Firm offers legal
advisory services in the field of bankruptcy, tax, banking and
commercial finance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
Lucy McShane, Esq.
McSHANE & BRADY, LLC
4006 Central Street
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 888-8010
Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com
lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
- and -
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
102 Half Moon Bay Drive
Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
Telephone: (917) 983-9321
Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com
eservice@4-justice.com
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Salazar Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JASON SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THOMPSON COBURN LLP and PRESBYTERIAN
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01509 (E.D. Mo.,
November 12, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendants'
failures to implement reasonable and industry standard data
security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately
destroy Plaintiff and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
Thompson Coburn's data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise networks of Defendants that, upon
information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
individuals. The Data Breach occurred between May 28, 2024, and May
29, 2024, and Thompson Coburn sent letters to notify Plaintiff and
Class Members on November 6, 2024.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. They must now and for years into the future closely monitor
their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity
theft. As a result of Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data
security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered
numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says the suit.
Thompson Coburn LLP is a nationwide law firm that has offices in
Chicago, Dallas, New York, Los Angeles, Southern Illinois,
Washington D.C., and Birmingham.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
TRELLA SOUVLAKI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Clemente Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CINECIO GONZALEZ CLEMENTE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRELLA SOUVLAKI CORP. d/b/a SVL
SOUVLAKI BAR; and PETER KATSIARIS, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-06983 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 2, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Clemente was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
staff.
Trella Souvlaki Corp. d/b/a SVL Souvlaki Bar operates in the
restaurant industry with its principal place of business at 3018B
Astoria Blvd, Astoria, NY 11102. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
- and -
Yale Pollack, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
66 Split Rock Road
Syosset, NY 11791
Telephone: (516) 634-6340
Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In re Turquoise Hill
Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third
amended complaint ("TAC").
The motion to dismiss is granted as to Plaintiffs' 10(b) claims
against Jacques arising in and after October 2018 and as to the
Plaintiffs' claims that Rio Tinto made a false statement about the
first draw bell blast. The motion to dismiss is denied as to the
10(b) claims against Jacques for risk disclosures before October
2018. The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. No. 332.
The Plaintiffs allege that Rio Tinto failed to disclose the
problems at the Mine in part due to concerns about weakening its
negotiating position with the Government of Mongolia.
After the class period, in March 2020, Bowley reported
Defendants’ alleged misconduct to securities regulators.
Also in March 2020, Turquoise Hill disclosed that it would require
at least an additional $4.5 billion in financing to complete the
project, on top of the $2.2 billion Turquoise Hill had in available
liquidity. In February 2021, the Mongolian Government announced it
was seeking to cancel the Oyu Tolgoi deal with Rio Tinto and
replace it with a new agreement due to the cost increases at the
Mine. In November 2020, the Oyu Tolgoi board hired a group of
experienced mining professionals, referred to as the Independent
Consulting Group (“ICG”), to investigate the causes of cost
overruns and schedule delays.
The original complaint in this case was accepted for filing on
October 15, 2020. The complaint sought damages under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Turquoise Hill from July 17, 2018, to July 31, 2019.
Rio Tinto is one of the world's largest metals and mining
companies.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Nov. 7, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0nbMrE
at no extra charge.[CC]
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 17, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frederick-Osborn v.
Twitter, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal., Filed
Jan. 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an
order granting as modified stipulation to revise briefing and
hearing schedule on plaintiff's motion for class certification.
-- Deadline for Dr. Killingsworth's Dec. 6, 2024
revised report (if any):
-- Deadline for deposition of Dr. Dec. 20, 2024
Killingsworth:
-- Defendant's opposition to class Jan. 17, 2025
certification:
-- Plaintiff's reply in support of Feb. 14, 2025
class certification:
-- Hearing: March 27, 2025
The nature of suit states Employment Discrimination.
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.[CC]
TYCO FIRE: Parties Seek Approval of Settlement Deal Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor in interest to
The Ansul Company, and CHEMGUARD, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02321-RMG
(D.S.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:
(i) accepting the Joint Interpretive Guidance as a supplement
to
the Settlement Agreements for Water Systems, and
(ii) amending Section VII of the Preliminary Approval Orders.
On April 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Settlement, for Certification of Settlement Class
and for Permission to Disseminate Class Notice and the Tyco
Settlement Agreement.
On June 13, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Tyco Settlement Agreement, as revised.
On July 3, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the BASF
Settlement Agreement, as revised.
The Settlement Agreements for Water Systems specifies, among other
things, a process for requesting exclusion from the Settlement, as
well as a deadline for withdrawing any such request.
Tyco manufactures and delivers fire suppression systems, including
extinguishing agents, and sprinkler systems.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8wEIEX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael A London, Esq.
DOUGLAS AND LONDON PC
59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212)-566-7500
Facsimile: (212)-566-7501
E-mail: mlondon@douglasandlondon.com
- and -
Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
1301 Avenue Of The Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212)-397-1000
Facsimile: (646)-843-7603
E-mail: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
- and -
Scott Summy, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
E-mail: ssummy@baronbudd.com
- and -
Joseph Rice, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9159
Facsimile: (843) 216-9290
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph G. Petrosinelli, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5547
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: jpetrosinelli@wc.com
- and -
Michael A. Olsen, Esq.
MAYER BROWN LLP
71 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-7120
Facsimile: (312) 706-8742
E-mail: molsen@mayerbrown.com
- and -
Brian Duffy, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
Facsimile: (843) 720-2047
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
David E. Dukes, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
1320 Main Street, 17th Floor
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 255-9451
Facsimile: (803) 256-7500
E-mail: david.dukes@nelsonmullins.com
UNITED PARCEL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For Dec. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds investors that a class action (Case No.
1:24-cv-04591) was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired United Parcel Service, Inc. (NYSE:
UPS) securities between January 30, 2024 and July 22, 2024. UPS is
a multinational parcel delivery and supply chain management
solutions company operating in more than 200 countries and
territories.
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr. at adumas@robbinsllp.com, or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) Misled Investors Regarding its
Business Prospects
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
created the false impression that they possessed reliable
information pertaining to the Company's projected revenue outlook
and anticipated growth while also minimizing risk from seasonality
and macroeconomic fluctuations. In truth, UPS' optimistic reports
of growth, plans to handle volume variability, upcoming profit
growth, and consistent claims that the first quarter would present
the worst margins of the fiscal year fell short of reality; the
Company was not truly equipped to handle a volume surge without
causing a corresponding significant decline in their operating
margin.
Plaintiff alleges that the truth emerged on July 23, 2024, when UPS
announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal
2024, provided lower-than-expected guidance for the third quarter,
and reduced its margin guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The
Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on the shift in
"U.S. volume mix both in terms of product and customer segmentation
. . . toward value products." On this news, the price of UPS common
stock fell from $145.18 per share on July 22, 2024, to close at
$127.68 per share on July 23, 2024, a decline of $17.50 per share,
or about 12.05% according to the complaint.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against United Parcel Service, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve
as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to
the court by December 9, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.
To be notified if a class action against United Parcel Service,
Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives
engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact:
Aaron Dumas, Jr.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
adumas@robbinsllp.com
(800) 350-6003
www.robbinsllp.com [GN]
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Barnett Class Suit Over Safe Workplace
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMMIE BARNETT, an individual, on behalf of herself, all aggrieved
employees, and the State of California as a Private Attorneys
General, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio corporation and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV29867 (Cal. Super., Nov. 13,
2024) alleges that the Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or
practice of failing to provide a place of employment that is safe
and healthful, including failing to provide legally compliant
bathrooms.
The Defendant failed to provide suitable bathroom facilities to
employees working in the field, primarily as drivers. As a result,
many employees working in the field as drivers relieved themselves
in water bottles, gallon jugs, and other items that are unsanitary
replacements for required bathrooms. They lacked handwashing
facilities to clean their hands after such acts. When employees,
like delivery drivers, returned to Defendant's facility, they were
not provided with any suitable place to dispose of the urine and
other unsanitary bathroom related items. As a result, trash cans at
Defendant's facilities overflowed with urine-filled water bottles
and other containers, the suit contends.
On July 8, 2024, the Plaintiff returned to work for the Defendant
following an approved extended leave of absence for a work-related
injury. She continued to experience the violations set forth in her
notice to the Labor and Workforce and Development Agency (LWDA) and
Division of Occupational Safety 21 and Health (DOSH), and
accordingly, on Sept. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff submitted a Cure
Dispute Notice to the LWDA and DOSH, and certified mail to the
Defendant, disputing that the Defendant has cured the violations,
including a declaration and accompanying photographic evidence,
attached as Exhibit C. The Plaintiff has not received any notice
from the LWDA or DOSH concerning her allegations.
The Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies
prior to filing the instant action. The Plaintiff now brings this
Complaint for civil penalties under the Private Attorneys General
Act ("PAGA"), Labor Code section 2698 et seq.
Plaintiff Barnett is a resident of the State of California and a
current employee of the Defendant.
The Defendant provides transportation, distribution, trade, and
brokerage services in more than 220 countries and territories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
- and -
Sahag Majarian, II, Esq. SBN 146621
Garen Majarian, Esq.
MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
18250 Ventura Blvd.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Telephone: (818) 609-0807
Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
E-mail: Sahagii@aol.com
garen@majarianlawgroup.com
VERTEX AEROSPACE: Romero Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Brandon Christopher Romero, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; DAN SPEER, an individual; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BCV-24-103141 was removed
from the Superior Court for the County of Kern, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
Nov. 12, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01385-JLT-CDB.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts 10 causes of action against
Defendant for: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay
minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide
rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations;
failure to pay to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation
of Labor Code; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Martin P. Vigodnier, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Martin.Vigodnier@jacksonlewis.com
WALMART INC: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply in Ivanoff
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA IVANOFF, et al. v.
WALMART INC., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00896-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their revised
joint motion for indefinite extension of time to reply to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and extending the
deadline for a response until further order of the Court.
The Defendants previously moved this Court for an indefinite
extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.
The Defendants are filing this revised motion only to clarify that
Defendants seek a further -- indefinite -- extension of time to
reply to Plaintiff's motion (when the Motion was previously filed,
the "New date requested" for a response to Plaintiff's motion was
entered in the Court's ECF system as today's date – Nov. 08,
2024.
The Defendants otherwise reserve their right to substantively
respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, should
this Court deny this Motion for an Indefinite Extension of Time to
Reply to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and
Suggestions in Support.
Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood
markets.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7zT8S2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
David E. Williamson, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY P.C.
312 Elm Street, Suite 1850
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 372-6816
Facsimile: (513) 372-6801
E-mail: dewilliamson@mdwcg.com
- and -
Keith A. Savidge, Esq.
TERESE MARIE FENNELL
Seeley, Savidge, Ebert & Gourash Co., LPA
26600 Detroit Road
Cleveland, OH 44145
Telephone: (216) 566-8200
Facsimile: (216) 566-0213
E-mail: kasavidge@sseg-law.com
tfennell@sseg-law.com
- and -
Byron A. Bowles, Jr., Esq.
Alan T. Fogleman, Esq.
Brian M. Israel, Esq.
MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & PHILLIPS, P.A.
10 E. Cambridge Circle Dr., suite 300
Kansas City, KS 66103
Telephone: (913) 371-3838
Facsimile: (913) 371-4722
E-mail: bbowles@mvplaw.com
afogleman@mvplaw.com
bisrael@mvplaw.com
- and -
Beth Schneider Naylor, Esq.
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
3300 Great American Tower
301 E. Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-6800
Facsimile: (513) 651-6981
E-mail: bnaylor@fbtlaw.com
WALMART.COM USA: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 5, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARISHA BYARS, et al., v.
WALMART.COM USA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04315-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Alex Tse entered a case management order as follows:
Event Date/Deadline
Further case management conference: Feb. 7, 2025
Last day to move to join parties or Aug. 8, 2025
amend pleadings:
Fact discovery cutoff: Sept. 5, 2025
Initial expert witness disclosures: Oct. 3, 2025
Rebuttal expert witness disclosures: Oct. 24, 2025
Expert discovery cutoff: Nov. 7, 2025
Deadline to file motion for class Dec. 5, 2025
Certification:
Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets (also called supercenters),
discount department stores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2IMvCt at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Aguilar Auto Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGUILAR AUTO REPAIR, INC.
and CENTRAL COAST TOBACCO CO., LLC, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., PRIORITY
TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC., PRIORITY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC and THE
CREDIT WHOLESALE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-06265-AMO (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs,
on Dec. 12, 2024, at 2:00 PM, will move the Court for an order:
-- certifying a settlement class consisting of:
"All businesses or individuals who received a telephone call
from
The Credit Wholesale Company, Inc. on a telephone in California
between Oct. 22, 2014 and Nov. 17, 2023."
-- preliminarily approving the settlement of this class action,
-- approving the proposed plan for notifying the class, and
-- setting a date for a final approval hearing.
This settlement is one of the largest ever under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). The Defendants have agreed to pay
$19,500,000 for the benefit of the class and cover settlement
administration costs up to $200,000.
This lawsuit was filed in state court on Oct. 10, 2023 on behalf of
a proposed class of small businesses in California who received
sales appointment-setting calls from Wholesale.
The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo and Priority were in a
principal-agent relationship with Wholesale and that, in the scope
of that relationship, Wholesale violated CIPA by recording
telemarketing calls without any warning that the recording was
occurring.
Wells Fargo runs a nationwide payments processing business.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5QFWPu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 986-1400
E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
- and -
Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 372-2100
E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com
jzolna@cherry-law.com
bswetland@cherry-law.com
WHEELS ON THE BUS: Roman Seeks Class Settlement Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN ROMAN, DARIEL
ALMONTE, JOSHUA BAILEY, and JOSE SANDOVAL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHEELS ON THE BUS
INCORPORATED, JAMES COHN, and ALVIN CHAMORRO, Case No.
1:21-cv-06377-SJB (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order:
(1) granting final approval of the settlement reached by the
parties in this action as embodied in their Amended
Settlement
Agreement (the "Settlement" or the "Settlement Agreement")
submitted herewith;
(2) certifying the following settlement class under Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedure 23 in connection with the settlement
process:
(a) are all persons employed as delivery drivers by the
Defendants
at any time between June 30, 2019 and June 30, 2023; and
(3) certifying the following settlement collective under the
Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) in connection with
the
settlement process:
(a) are all persons employed as delivery drivers during the same
period as 2(a) above, as well as all plaintiffs who have
already opted into this case (the "Current Opt-Ins").
Wheels on the Bus Inc provides healthcare services. The Company
offers therapy, respite, and habilitation services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OF56k8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel M. Haskell, Esq.
WORKING SOLUTIONS LAW FIRM
80 Broad Street, Suite 703
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 430-7930
WHITE CAP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Lobdell Due July 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW LOBDELL, v. WHITE
CAP, LP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-11450-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy Edmunds entered a scheduling order as follows:
Initial Disclosures: Dec. 4, 2024
Witness Lists Filed By: Feb. 24, 2025
Discovery Cutoff: June 3, 2025
Class Certification: July 3, 2025
Expert Discovery: To be set following ruling
on
motion for class
certification.
Referral to Magistrate Judge: for settlement conference
after
David R. Grand discovery closes
Dispositive Motion Cutoff: To be set following the
ruling
on the motion for class
certification
Final Pretrial Conference: To be determined
White Cap is a construction company based in Knoxville, TN and
specializes in bentonite waterproofing, masonry, concrete, and
access doors and panels.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zMd8C4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
WOLFSPEED INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE:WOLF)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/wolfspeed-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=112451&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Wolfspeed, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August
16, 2023 and November 6, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided the
public with revenue projections that depended on Wolfspeed's Mohawk
Valley fabrication facility ramping its production to meet and/or
exceed demand for its 200mm wafer product. On November 6, 2024,
Wolfspeed announced its financial results for the first quarter of
fiscal year 2025 and unveiled guidance for the second quarter well
below expectations. While defendants had repeatedly claimed that
20% utilization of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility would
result in $100 million revenue out of the facility, defendants now
guided to a range 30% to 50% below that mark. The Company
attributed its results and lowered guidance to "demand …
ramp[ing] more slowly than we originally anticipated" as "EV
customers revise their launch time lines as the market works though
this transition period."
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Wolfspeed's
revelation. The price of Wolfspeed's common stock declined
dramatically. From a closing market price of $13.71 per share on
November 6, 2024, Wolfspeed's stock price fell to $8.33 per share
on November 7, 2024, a decline of about 39.24% in the span of just
a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Wolfspeed stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/wolfspeed-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=112451&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Singh Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL PIYARI SINGH, on behalf of the general public as private
attorney general, Plaintiff v. YOSHINOYA AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV29626 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 12, 2024)
arises from the Defendants' various violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code.
According to the complaint, the Defendants implemented policies and
practices which led to their (a) failure to pay wages including
overtime; (b) failure to provide meal periods for every work period
exceeding more than five or 10 hours per day; (c) failure to
provide rest breaks for every four hours or major fraction thereof
worked; (d) failing to pay timely wages; (e) failing to provide
accurate itemized wage statements; (f) failing to indemnify
necessary business expenses; and (g) failing to pay vested vacation
pay at separation. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks penalties under
Labor Code on behalf of the general public as private attorney
general and all other aggrieved employees.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants on July 13, 2023 as a
non-exempt employee with the title of Shift Manager and worked
during the liability period for Defendants until Plaintiff's
separation from work on January 22, 2024.
Yoshinoya America, Inc. operates as a restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins, Esq.
Gregory Mauro, Esq.
Michael Calvo, Esq.
Lauren Falk, Esq.
Ava Issary, Esq.
JAMES HAWKINS APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com
michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com
lauren@jameshawkinsaplc.com
ava@jameshawkinsaplc.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 ***