/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 237 Headlines 212 STEAKHOUSE: Bid to Voluntarily Dismiss NYLL Claims OK'd ACCUHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES: Shaw-Clarke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Clemmerson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee ALGENIST LLC: Pepenella Sues Over Misleading Advertisement AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sued Over Undisclosed Salaries in Job Postings AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seek Reconsideration of Oct. 30, 2024 Order ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Issakova Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. APPLE INC: McBride Balks at Defective AirPods Pro Gen 1 Headphones ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Employment Class Suit in Calif. ASML HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit Over 6.4% Shares Price Drop ASTON HEALTHCARE: Eubanks Alleges FMLA and FCRA Violations BARI HOME: Laduca Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides BAXTER INT'L: Hill-Rom Continues to Defend Reading Hospital Suit BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Carlton BRIA HEALTH: McGath Seeks Certified Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT BRIGHAM YOUNG: Garcia Alleges Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Suit Says CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Spitzer Securities Class Suit Stayed CASCADE CAPITAL: Class Settlement in Kaiser Suit Gets Final Nod CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemented Complaint CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Raps Over Power Outages CENTRAL BANK: Bid to Strike Rutherford Class Allegations Tossed CENTRAL STATE: Faces Gray Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Smoke Seeks to Certify Retired Army Class CUSO FINANCIAL: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Javis Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Mislabels Diphenhydramine-Based Sleep-Aids, Suit Says DAVID CASEY: Vargo Wins Summary Judgment on Federal Clause Claim DESTINATION XL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DIAMOND SOURCE: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DILIGENT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Suit Says DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 7, 2025 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid DMCG INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearings EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Lopez EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Seeks Notice Plan Approval EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Loses Bid for Class Certification EXTREME NETWORKS: Class Cert Hearing Set for April 28, 2026 EZ FESTIVALS: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Avchukov EZ FESTIVALS: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Brockmole EZ FESTIVALS: Court Extends Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing FOODTOWN INC: Sumlin Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FRESH BELLIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says GENERAL DYNAMICS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Rivera Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action GOODRX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Price Deal Conspiracy GREAT FROG: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Suit Says GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action for Embedding TikTok Software HEALTH CARE: Dunckel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Allowed Leave to File Reply HEMATITE LAND: Juan Files Suit Over Deceptive SCE Strategy HIGHMARK INC: Mollinea Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania HOT TOPIC INC: Garcia Files Suit in C.D. California HUT 8 CORP: Parties Must Submit Full Briefing on Bid to Dismiss INARI MEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit Over Disclosures INTEL CORP: Brown Sues Over Sale of Defective Processors IRONBEAM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Alleges ISLAND CELLULAR: Ponniah Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages J&T RESTAURANTS: Parties Seek Approval of Notice Issuance JAMAICA SERVICE: Class Settlement in Wilson Lawsuit Gets Approval JOHN CARROLL: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Parties Seek Amendment of Scheduling Order JOHNSON, TN: Plaintiffs Seek to Continue Use of Daigle Audit KENSINGTON SENIOR: Hollenbeck Suit Removed to C.D. California KIA FINANCE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Rodney Class Suit KRAFT HEINZ: Parties Seek Briefing Schedule LAMB WESTON: Redner's Markets Sues Over Price-Fixing LEAF HOME: Bid for Class Cert in Sisco Suit Due Oct. 10, 2025 LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Feb. 10, 2025 Class Cert Response Deadline LILIUM NV: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Kloster Suit Claims LUTHER AUTOMOTIVE: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri MARK CUBAN: Karnas Seeks More Time to File Supplemental Reply MAZDA MOTOR: Farina Appeals Final Approval of Guthrie Suit Deal MDL 2873: Paulin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals MDL 2992: Bid to Seal Exhibits Partly Granted in Unemployment Case MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Court Extends Deadline on Discovery to Dec. 20 MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Conditional Status of Collective Sought MEDSTAR HEALTH: Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel OK'd MERRICK GARLAND: Settlement in Segar Suit Gets Initial Nod METAGENOMI INC: Continues to Defend Vreeland Class Suit in Calif. MIDCOUNTRY BANK: Fiecke-Stifter Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Cir. MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2025 MR. COOPER GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach Incident NETFLIX INC: Faces Denton Suit Over Poor Streaming Quality NEW CHEUNG'S: Underpays Meat Shop Employees, Martinez Suit Claims NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Class Suit in New York NJK MANAGEMENT: Faces Ball Suit Over Labor Code Violations NU RIDE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit OKLAHOMA SPINE: Abdelraouf Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI ORTHOPEDICSNY LLP: Wagoner Files Suit in N.D. New York P&O CRUISES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Behavior PACS GROUP: Manchin Sues Over Share Price Drop PAISLEY CRAFTS: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website PELICIA HALL: Alexander Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice PEOPLEREADY INC: Goodwin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PLAZA HOME: Underpays Account Executives, Walling Suit Says PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Grady Suit Gets Initial Nod RELIANCE HEALTH: Dress Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Allison Sues Over Misleading Statements REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2025 REWORLD HOLDING: Bid to Strike Expert Declarations Partly OK'd RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Judge Recommends Class Cert. Denial RUST-OLEUM: Andreozzi Sues Over False Advertisements SAFERENT SOLUTIONS: Judge OKs Settlement on AI Discrimination Suit SAMARIS REALTY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Longhini Says SEASTAR MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Wells Class Suit SELECT PORTFOLIO: Payne Sues Over Refusal to Release Liens SET FORTH: Allen Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data SET FORTH: Carroll Files Suit in N.D. Illinois SET FORTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Garrett Says SET FORTH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hopkins Says SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid SHADE STORE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to March 24, 2025 SHAW INDUSTRIES: Cundiff Sues Over Contaminated Carpet Products SIMADOR LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls SMARTSHEET INC: Bushansky Sues Over Exchange Act Violation SMTC MANUFACTURING: Seeks Denial of Nguyen Class Certification Bid SOUTH CAROLINA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Transgender Students SOUTH DAKOTA: Irvine's Bid to Amend Class Definition Tossed SPECIALIZED LOAN: Butler Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective SPECIALIZED LOAN: Butler Seeks Conditional Status of Collective SPEED UTV: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered in Orient STAKE CENTER: Loonsfoot Seeks to Certify Hourly Utility Locators STATE FARM: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to Feb. 5, 2025 STATE FARM: Feb. 5, 2025 Filing of Opposition Papers Sought STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Deruelle Sues Over Sandwiches' False Ads SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Court Adopts Proposed Briefing Schedule TARGET CORPORATION: Jibowu Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota TAYLOR FRESH: Onion Products Contaminated With E. Coli, Keene Says THOMPSON COBURN: Mathiasen Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info TICKETMASTER LLC: Pomeroy Suit Transferred to D. Montana TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Marks Suit Removed to C.D. California TOM VILSACK: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice TRANS UNION: Reyes Suit Administratively Closed TREEHOUSE FOODS: Berbano Sues Over Contaminated Products TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Antitrust-Related Class Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Bui Class Suit TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend De Bellefeuille Suit in Quebec TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Antitrust Suit for Final Court OK UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonhomme Suit Removed to N.D. California UNITED MORTGAGE: Court Junks Mattson Class Certification Bid UNITED NETWORK: Stipulation on Class Cert Deadlines OK'd UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Feb. 5, 2025 UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert. Discovery Due Sept. 17, 2025 USHEALTH ADVISORS: Isaacs Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM: Ozuzu Sues Over Deceptive Labeling VGW HOLDINGS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response VIESTE SPE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Crossfirst Bank VIPRI CORP: Parties in Cuesta Must Confer Initial Case Management VISA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for January 20 VISA INC: Continues to Defend Burke Consumer Class Suit WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHOLE FOODS: Winkelman Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants XEROX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit YANKA INDUSTRIES: Discloses Personal/Video Info to Meta, Lien Says ZETA GLOBAL: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ********* 212 STEAKHOUSE: Bid to Voluntarily Dismiss NYLL Claims OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINO MARTINENKO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, and DAGMARA MAJA HUK, v. 212 STEAKHOUSE, INC., and NIKOLAY VOLPER, Case No. 1:22-cv-00518-JLR-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the remaining NYLL Section 195 claims without prejudice, and -- denying Defendants' motion to decertify the class. The Court will enter the proposed judgment at Dkt. 145-2 that includes the allocation among Class Members, and Plaintiffs are ordered to issue the notice to Class Members set forth at Dkt. 145-1. The Court finds that under either the Zagano factors or the legal-prejudice test, dismissal of Plaintiffs' NYLL Section 195 claims without prejudice is warranted. The Court declines to revisit its decision on Defendants' decertification motion and finds that nothing about Plaintiffs' request for a dismissal of the NYLL Section 195 claims alters the Court's determination as to the propriety of the Class. Allowing Class Members to bring their NYLL Section 195 claims in state court does not in any way disturb the Court's prior holding on class certification, which did not depend on the NYLL claims to find that common issues predominated across the Class. Therefore, having already entered judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Class Members on their underpayment claims, the Court declines to disturb its previous Order by now decertifying the Class. The Court denies Defendants' motion for decertification and enters final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the minimum-wage, overtime, and spread-of-hours claims, consistent with the Court's summary judgment Order and Plaintiffs' proposed per–Class Member breakdown. 212 Steakhouse offers an exclusive steak collection for the New York, NY, area. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uz5sB3 at no extra charge.[CC] ACCUHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES: Shaw-Clarke Sues Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Suen Shaw-Clarke, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. ACCUHEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and ASC HEALTHCARE, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability Company, Case No. 0:24-cv-62157-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought on behalf of other current and former employees of Defendants, who have worked as "Account Managers" or "Client Relations Directors," however variously titled, for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees of this action under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants while performing non-exempt production, sales work in the position known as "Account Manager (Sales)" and "Client Relations Director." Likewise, the other employees of Defendants who are similarly situated to Plaintiff have regularly worked as "Account Managers" or "Client Relations Directors," however, variously titled, in excess of 40 hours in one or more work weeks for Defendants within the 3 year statute of limitations period between November 2021 and the present. However, Defendants have failed to pay time and one-half wages for the overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and the other similarly situated "Account Managers" or "Client Relations Directors," however variously titled, for all of their actual overtime hours worked within the 3 year statute of limitations period, with Defendants instead misclassifying Plaintiff and the other similarly situated employees as exempt from the FLSA's overtime compensation requirements and paying only salaried wages for 40 hours of work per week without time and one-half compensation for all of hours worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week during numerous work weeks between November 2021 and the present, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 2000 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 901-1379 Fax: (561) 288-9031 Email: employlaw@keithstern.com AFFIRM HOLDINGS: Clemmerson Suit Transferred to W.D. Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Douglas Clemmerson, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Affirm Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-06097 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 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-02886-SHL-cgc to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Affirm Holdings, Inc. -- https://investors.affirm.com/ -- is an American technology company offering financial services to shoppers and merchants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: (415) 846-3862 Fax: (415) 358-6923 Email: mram@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Betty Heeso Kim, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 612-2109 Email: betty.kim@orrick.com - and - Kalama M. Lui-Kwan, Esq. Peter Jacob Kozaczuk, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 477-5700 Fax: (415) 477-5710 Email: kalama.lui-kwan@troutman.com jacob.kozaczuk@troutman.com ALGENIST LLC: Pepenella Sues Over Misleading Advertisement ---------------------------------------------------------- Adelina Pepenella, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Algenist LLC and Tengram Capital Partners LP, Case No. 1:24-cv-08688 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought against the Defendant as a result of false and misleading statements and advertisement. Algenist formulates, manufactures, advertises, and/or sells its GENIUS "Collagen" cosmetics (the "Products") throughout the United States, including in New York. Algenist markets its Products in a systematically misleading manner by conspicuously misrepresenting on the Products' front labels that they contain "collagen"—an animal derived protein, often included in skincare products for its anti-aging effects and other skin benefits. Despite Algenist's conspicuous representations, however, the Products use a fake imitation of collagen "derived entirely from corn, soy and wheat plant protein fibers." As Algenist itself acknowledges, its plant-based compound is formulated "to provide a functional and structural equivalent to animal-derived collagen." As a result of its deceptive conduct, Algenist is, and continues to be, unjustly enriched at the expense of their consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Algenist's Products. The Defendants formulating, manufacturing, advertising, and/or selling the Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Suite 4667 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 884-4230 Email: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Sued Over Undisclosed Salaries in Job Postings ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE RIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a foreign limited liability company; AMAZON RETAIL LLC, a foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. _______ (Wash. Super., King Cty., October 3, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals who applied to job openings with the Defendants where the job postings did not include the wage scale or salary range being offered in direct violation of RCW 49.58.110. The Plaintiff and the Class seek injunctive relief to address Defendants' refusal to include a wage scale or salary range in their job postings, and statutory damages pursuant to RCW 49.58.070 and RCW 49.58.110. Plaintiff Rios resides in Snohomish County, Washington and applied for a position with Defendants in the State of Washington. Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 442-9106 Facsimile: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com AMAZON.COM.DEDC: Chiu Seek Reconsideration of Oct. 30, 2024 Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER CHIU, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDC, LLC., Case No. 3:18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting reconsideration of the portion of its Oct. 30, 2024 Order denying Rule 23 class action certification. The Plaintiff asserts that the Court made clear errors of fact and law in declining to certify the originally proposed class or, in the alternative, a narrower class as set forth in the attached proposed Order. Amazon.com.dedc retails auto parts. The Company offers towing mirrors, air suspension, retainer clips kits, and wheel chocks. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QP3S8s at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Matthew D. Miller, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 9 Tanner Street, Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Issakova Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- EMILIA ISSAKOVA, NATALIE NIEVES, NATALIE MOZAMMEL and JOBED LA POINTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES INC. and THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08718 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including misclassification and failure to pay overtime wages and retaliation. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as network relations consultants in New York. The Elevance Health Companies Inc., formerly known as The Anthem Companies Inc., is a healthcare enterprise based in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Ciaccio, Esq. NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC 400 Broadhollow Rd., #305 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 Email: jciaccio@napolilaw.com APPLE INC: McBride Balks at Defective AirPods Pro Gen 1 Headphones ------------------------------------------------------------------ MATICA MCBRIDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-06081 (E.D. Pa., November 13, 2024) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated persons who purchased Apple AirPods Pro Generation One Headphones with an audio defect, seeking remedy for Defendant's various violations of Pennsylvania's consumer protection and warranty laws in connection with manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling and warranting of the product. According to the complaint, Apple admits that AirPods Pro Gen 1 have an audio defect that causes them to exhibit crackling or static sounds, loss of bass sounds, or an increase in background sounds. Reasonable consumers expect that high-end, high-priced headphones like Apple's AirPods Pro Gen 1, which Apple advertised as having noise cancelling features and superior sound compared to other headphones, would have consistently functioning, high-quality audio. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Class Members would not have purchased their AirPods Pro Gen 1 or they would have paid less had they known that Apple's advertising was false and misleading, and that the AirPods Pro Gen 1 contained an Audio Defect, says the suit. Apple, Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology company headquartered and incorporated in Cupertino, California.[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 ASHFORD INC: Continues to Defend Employment Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Biovie 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 an employment class suit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the Contra Costa County. On December 20, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against one of the Company's subsidiaries in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Contra Costa alleging violations of certain California employment laws. The Court has entered an order granting class certification with respect to: (i) a statewide class of non-exempt employees who were allegedly deprived of rest breaks as a result of the subsidiary's previous written policy requiring employees to stay on premises during rest breaks; and (ii) a derivative class of non-exempt former employees who were not paid for allegedly missed breaks upon separation from employment. Notices to potential class members were sent out on February 2, 2021. Potential class members had until April 4, 2021 to opt out of the class, however, the total number of employees in the class has not been definitively determined and is the subject of continuing discovery. The opt out period has been extended until such time that discovery has concluded. In May of 2023, the trial court requested additional briefing from the parties to determine whether the case should be maintained, dismissed, or the class decertified. After submission of the briefs, the Court requested that the parties submit stipulations for the Court to rule upon. On February 13, 2024, the judge ordered the parties to submit additional briefing related to on-site breaks. The Court has ordered the parties to complete a second mediation no later than January 31, 2025. While the Company believes it is reasonably possible that it may incur a loss associated with this litigation, because there remains uncertainty under California law with respect to a significant legal issue, discovery relating to class members continues, and the trial judge retains discretion to award lower penalties than set forth in the applicable California employment laws, it does not believe that any potential loss to the Company is reasonably estimable at this time. As of September 30, 2024, no amounts have been accrued. Ashford Inc., a Nevada corporation, is an alternative asset management company with a portfolio of strategic operating businesses that provides products and services primarily to clients in the real estate and hospitality industries, including Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. and Braemar Hotels and Resorts, Inc. ASML HOLDING: Faces Securities Suit Over 6.4% Shares Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF HOLLYWOOD FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASML HOLDING N.V., CHRISTOPHE FOUQUET, ROGER DASSEN, and PETER WENNINK, Case No. 1:24-cv-08664 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2024) is a securities class action brought on behalf of a class of all investors that purchased or otherwise acquired ASML ordinary shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market between Jan. 24, 2024, and Oct. 15, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The suit alleges that the Defendants employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud; made untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading; and engaged in acts, practices, and a course of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the Company's ordinary shares on the Nasdaq in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices thereof in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In November 2022, ASML provided long-term guidance, telling investors that by 2025 the Company would generate between €30 billion and €40 billion in sales, with a gross margin of between 54% and 56%. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly assured investors that, despite broader adverse trends in the semiconductor industry, ASML's business was on a path to recovery. The Defendants also downplayed concerns about the impact that tighter export regulations would have on ASML's revenue from systems sold to customers in China, the suit says. The truth about ASML's prospects was revealed in connection with the Company's release of its third quarter 2024 financial results on Oct. 15, 2024, and the accompanying earnings call on Oct. 16, 2024. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Company announced that it recorded quarterly bookings of only €2.63 billion—a 53% decline from €5.6 billion in the second quarter of 2024. During the accompanying earnings call with investors held before the U.S. markets opened on Oct. 16, 2024, ASML's Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Roger Dassen, attributed the poor bookings results to "a reflection of the slow recovery in the traditional [semiconductor] end markets as customers remain cautious in the current environment." On this news, the price of ASML ordinary shares fell an additional $46.91 per share, or approximately 6.4%, from a close of $730.43 per share on Oct. 15, 2024, to close at $683.52 per share on Oct. 16, 2024, the suit further alleges. ASML sells photolithography machines to chipmakers that are used in the semiconductor fabrication process.[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 E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON, P.A. 7080 Northwest 4th Street Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com ASTON HEALTHCARE: Eubanks Alleges FMLA and FCRA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- BETH EUBANKS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASTON HEALTHCARE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and WOODSIDE OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a Woodside Health and Rehabilitation, a foreign limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01041 (M.D. Fla., November 12, 2024), accuses the Defendant Aston Health of engaging in a pattern or practice of Family and Medical Leave Act's interference and retaliation. In addition, Plaintiff Eubanks alleges that Defendant Woodside Health violated her protected rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff was hired by Promedica on or around July 20, 2020. In November 2022, Plaintiff was involved in a serious car accident. Plaintiff was granted FMLA leave for between April 14, 2023, through May 14, 2023. However, on May 5, 2023, the eve of the acquisition closing date, Defendants informed Plaintiff her FMLA leave rights would not be honored and terminated her employment, effective immediately. Despite their knowledge that Plaintiff was undergoing continuous medical treatment for debilitating injuries, Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Moreover, the termination interfered with Plaintiff's FMLA rights, says the suit. Headquartered in Brooklyn, NY, Aston Health operates a network of health care facilities that provide skilled nursing care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: George G. Triantis, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 577-4761 Facsimile: (813) 559-4870 E-mail: Gtriantis@forthepeople.com Medelman@forthepeople.com BARI HOME: Laduca Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Home Health Aides --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN LADUCA and LUCIO LADUCA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BARI HOME CARE, LLC and ASEF BARI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07970 (E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay sick leave, and inaccurate wage statements. Plaintiffs Kathleen Laduca and Lucio Laduca were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt home health aides from approximately December 2021 to June 2024 and from approximately December 2021 to June 2024, respectively. Bari Home Care, LLC is a home health agency based in Holbrook, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Michele Moreno, Esq. Paige Piazza, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 Email: llusher@vandallp.com mmoreno@vandallp.com ppiazza@vandallp.com BAXTER INT'L: Hill-Rom Continues to Defend Reading Hospital Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Baxter International Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that Hill-Rom Holdings, the Company it purchased in December 13, 2024, continues to defend itself from the Reading Hospital class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 20, 2024, Reading Hospital filed a putative class action complaint against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1 and 2 of The Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act by allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for standard, ICU and birthing beds. The plaintiff filed the action on behalf of itself and all "direct purchasers of Standard Hospital Beds, ICU Beds, and/or Birthing Beds from Hill-Rom during a period beginning at least as early as June 20, 2020" and continuing past the date of filing. On September 30, 2024, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Baxter International Inc. is a healthcare company based in Illinois. Based in Chicago, IL, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. manufactures and supplies medical technologies and other related services for the healthcare industry. [BN] BIOVIE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Biovie 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 a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On January 19, 2024, a purported shareholder class action complaint, captioned Eric Olmstead v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 3:24-cv-00035, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants. On February 22, 2024, a second, related putative securities class action was filed in the same court asserting similar claims against the same defendants, captioned Way v. BioVie Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00361. On April 15, 2024, the court consolidated these two actions under the caption In re BioVie Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-00035, appointed the lead plaintiff, and approved selection of the lead counsel. On June 21, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to the Company's business, operations, compliance, and prospects, including information related to the NM101 Phase 3 study and trial of bezisterim (NE3107) in mild to moderate probable AD, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The class action is on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from December 7, 2022 through November 28, 2023, and seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 21, 2024, and plaintiffs filed their opposition on October 21, 2024. The defendant's reply brief is due December 5, 2024. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. The defendant's reply brief is due December 5, 2024. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery, development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies, including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN] BLOOMINGTON, IL: Court Directs Filing of Discovery Plan in Carlton ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlton v. City of Bloomington et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01293-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows: -- Rule 16 scheduling conference The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference approximately 30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. The conference will generally be conducted by telephone. -- Discovery plan The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least three calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference. -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference If the parties agree on all matters contained in the discovery plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16 scheduling conference be cancelled. -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most hearings by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to appear for an in-person hearing. -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the discovery deadline has already passed The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all discovery disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even if the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to conduct discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the Court, they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived. -- Settlement conferences and mediation The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to Judge Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or mediation. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h5RrLb at no extra charge.[CC] BRIA HEALTH: McGath Seeks Certified Nursing Assistants' Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- PASHAEY MCGATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRIA HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11777 (N.D. Ill., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Certified Nursing Assistant in Geneva, Illinois from approximately June 2022 until January 2023. Bria Health Services, LLC is a company that owns and operates nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities, headquartered in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hnilges@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th Street, Suite 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Scott D. Perlmutter, Esq. TITTLE & PERLMUTER 4106 Bridge Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 308-1522 Facsimile: (888) 604-9299 Email: scott@tittlelawfirm.com BRIGHAM YOUNG: Garcia Alleges Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN GARCIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY d/b/a BYU BROADCASTING, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-AMA (D. Utah, November 12, 2024), accuses the Defendant of violating the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's practice of knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) ("Meta"), "personally identifiable information" (PII) which identifies the prerecorded audio visual material Plaintiff and similarly situated subscribers request or obtain from Defendant's website. Moreover, the Defendant installed the Pixel to collect and disclose to Meta information about how its users interact with its website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks an order enjoining Defendant from further unauthorized disclosures of subscribers' PII; awarding liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 per violation, attorneys' fees, and costs; and granting any other preliminary or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. Headquartered in Utah, Brigham Young University operates www.byutv.org, its streaming service through which it solely offers audio visual materials such as prerecorded television series and full-length feature films. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Carney, Esq. Hank Bates, Esq. Samuel Randolph Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com - and - Jacob D. Barney, Esq. ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C. 50 W. Broadway, Ste. 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 534-1700 E-mail: jbarney@aklawfirm.com BYTEDANCE INC: Collects Minors' Info Without Consent, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- NICK MCKISSICK, on behalf of A.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-08051 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, violations of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California's Constitutional Right to Privacy, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to disclose that they collect and sell personally identifiable information of millions of minor children without the consent of the minors or their parents. The Defendants allegedly use the PII collected from children (under the age of 13) to target them with advertising. The Defendants knowingly enriched by revenues and profits they received from unjustly and illegally collecting and using the personal information of minor children to build profiles and target advertisements to those children. The Plaintiff's minor child and Class Members seek relief, including disgorgement of all revenues and profits that the Defendants earned as a result of their unlawful and wrongful conduct, says the suit. Bytedance, Inc. is a technology company based in Mountain View, California. Bytedance, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands. TikTok, Ltd. is a technology company based in Cayman Islands. TikTok, Inc. is a short-form video hosting service provider based in Culver City, California. TikTok Pte. Ltd. is a short-form video hosting service provider based in Singapore. TikTok U.S. Data Security, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business shared with TikTok Inc. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (805) 270-7100 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com CAPSTONE GREEN ENERGY: Spitzer Securities Class Suit Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Capstone Green Energy Holdings 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 12, 2024, that the United States District Court for the Central District of California stayed the Spitzer securities class suit to give parties chance to settle. On October 13, 2023, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Spitzer v. Flexon, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-08659, naming certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers as defendants. The suit alleges various claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements and allegedly inadequate disclosure regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects and the circumstances leading up to the restatement of the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between June 14, 2021 and September 22, 2023, and seeks to recover unspecified compensatory damages and other relief, including attorney's fees. The Company is not a named respondent in this matter and has not engaged legal counsel. In August 2024, Petitioners made an unprompted settlement demand. The action has been stayed since September 6, 2024 to allow the parties to explore settlement, the outcome of which such cannot be assured or reasonably estimated. Capstone Green Energy Holdings, Inc., develops, manufactures, markets, sells and service microturbine-based technology solutions based in Van Nuys, California. CASCADE CAPITAL: Class Settlement in Kaiser Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KAISER and MARGARET J. LOEWEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CASCADE CAPITAL LLC, and GORDON AYLWORTH & TAMI P.C., Case No. 3:16-cv-00744-AR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jeff Armistead entered an order granting the parties' joint oral motion for approval of the settlement and certification of the class: 1. The definitions and provisions of the Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (the "Agreement") are incorporated in this Order as though fully set forth herein. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Agreement for and over all parties to the Agreement, including Representative Plaintiff and all Class members. 3. The Court approves the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, within the authority of the parties, and the result of extensive arm's length negotiations with the guidance of an experienced mediator. 4. This Court confirms the Class, as defined in the Court's Preliminary Order Approving the Settlement and Granting Class Certification (ECF No. 265) and as described in the Settlement Agreement, has been appropriately identified by the parties. 5. No members of the Class have requested to be excluded from the Class or objected to the Settlement. 6. The Court grants final approval to the Settlement and finds that it is fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Class as a whole. The Court appoints Michael Kaiser and Margaret Loewen as Class Representatives and Mark Passannante and Bret Knewtson as Class Counsel. 7. The Court has reviewed the Cost Bill filed by Plaintiffs seeking the amount of $5,870.90. Cascade Capital is a privately held healthcare real estate investment and management company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQJxdP at no extra charge.[CC] CASSAVA SCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to File Supplemented Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting opposed motion for leave to file second supplemented complaint: Lead Plaintiff Mohammad Bozorgi and additional plaintiffs Ken Calderone and Manohar K. Rao move for leave to supplement their June 13, 2024 Supplemented Consolidated Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws against the Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) or (d). The Plaintiffs request that the Court grant their motion to supplement the Complaint and allow Plaintiffs to supplement the Complaint with the allegations reflected in Exhibit A. The Defendants will not suffer undue prejudice if the Court grants the Motion. Cassava Sciences is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RSLyWp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq. Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. Jeremy W. Daniels, Esq. Megan A. Rossi, Esq. Heather Geiger, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dand@rgrdlaw.com jdaniels@rgrdlaw.com klavelle@rgrdlaw.com mrossi@rgrdlaw.com hgeiger@rgrdlaw.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces Raps Over Power Outages ------------------------------------------------- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2024, that as of September 30, 2024, three putative class actions have been filed against CenterPoint Energy and/or Houston Electric in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, on behalf of individuals or entities who claim losses due to power outages lasting at least 48 hours as a result of Hurricane Beryl, such actions consisting of the following proposed classes: (1) all restaurants in Harris County, Galveston County, and Montgomery County; (2) all residential customers; and (3) all health, wellness, medical and beauty facilities in Harris County. These putative classes assert claims and theories of negligence, gross negligence, nuisance, fraud, and/or violation of Houston Electric’s tariff for retail delivery service, and each seeks damages in excess of $100 million for, among other things, business interruption, property damage and loss, cost of repair, loss of use and market value, lost income, nuisance, extreme mental anguish and/or punitive damages. CenterPoint Energy is a public utility holding company with operating subsidiaries Houston Electric that owns and operates electric transmission and distribution facilities in the Texas gulf coast area that includes the city of Houston. CENTRAL BANK: Bid to Strike Rutherford Class Allegations Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD, III, v. CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Theresa Fricke entered an order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss or strike class allegations. On July 13, 2023, the District of Oregon certified a nationwide EFTA class defined as follows: "All persons (1) taken into custody at a jail, correctional facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement facility within the United States, (2) entitled to the return of money confiscated from them or remaining in their inmate accounts when they were released from custody, and (3) who had those funds returned through a debit card provided by Defendant Stored Value Cards and/or its partner bank, Defendant Central National Bank and Trust Company, despite never having requested nor applied for a debit card, within one year prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this action, and during its pendency, and (4) who incurred fees or charges.” Those who satisfy these four criteria but who received a debit card from April 1, 2017, to April 30, 2018, and did not opt out of the settlement class in Humphrey v. Stored Value Cards No. 1:18- CV-01050 (N.D. Ohio), are excluded from this class. The Plaintiff Rutherford was incarcerated at Pierce County Jail in 2023 and upon release was issued a prepaid debit card from CBKC. The card was preloaded with funds confiscated from him when he was taken into custody and funds that were deposited into his account during his incarceration; the card was already activated when he received it. Central Bank of Kansas City is a local community bank that has provided financial services for individuals and businesses since 1951. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gu3fFo at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRAL STATE: Faces Gray Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GRAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTRAL STATE BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00086-RGE-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, November 13, 2024) arises from Defendant's alleged unlawful business practice of assessing (1) $32.00 overdraft fees on transactions that did not overdraw the account, and (2) multiple fees on an item. According to the complaint, these practices breach promises made in Defendant's adhesion contract. The Plaintiff and other customers of Defendant have been injured by Defendant's improper fee maximization practices. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the classes of individuals preliminarily defined below, brings claims for Defendant's breach of contract, including the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Central State Bank is a bank with more than $470 million in assets. The Company is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers at its 6 locations in Iowa.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: goplerud@sagwlaw.com marty@sagwlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 E-mail: chris@jenningspllc.com CHRISTINE WORMUTH: Smoke Seeks to Certify Retired Army Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE A. SMOKE AND JENNIFER M. MCINTYRE, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, in her official capacity as United States Secretary of the Army, Case No. 1:24-cv-02919-ACR (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying their action against the Defendant, as a class action and appointing class counsel. The Plaintiffs file this action, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated seeking final injunctive and declaratory relief. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of persons who: a. Were medically retired from the United States Army for an unfitting condition covered under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics ("PACT") Act's burn pit presumptions ("PACT Act Conditions"); b. Served in locations and during timeframes defined in 38 U.S.C. section 1119; and c. Received a final medical retirement decision dated after Aug. 10, 2022 that found their unfitting PACT Act Condition was not "combat-related" under 26 U.S.C. section 104 despite their exposure to military burn pits and the PACT Act presumption that such exposure caused them to incur their unfitting disability. On May 28, 2021, Christine Wormuth was sworn in as the 25th (and current) secretary of the Army, the first woman to serve in the role. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gLdloh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth M. Chiarello, Esq. Emily M. Wexler, Esq. Mark C. Priebe, Esq. Daniel J. Hay, Esq. C.K. Kevin Park, Esq. Susan K. Whaley, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-7000 Facsimile: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: echiarello@sidley.com ewexler@sidley.com mpriebe@sidley.com dhay@sidley.com ck.park@sidley.com susan.whaley@sidley.com - and - Rochelle Bobroff, Esq. Esther Leibfarth, Esq. NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 1100 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22209 Telephone: (202) 621-5709 Facsimile: (202) 223-9199 E-mail: rochelle@nvlsp.org esther@nvlsp.org CUSO FINANCIAL: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Info, Javis Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN JAVIS v. CUSO FINANCIAL SERVICES, LP, Case No. 3:24-cv-02137-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2024) is a class action suing the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of roughly 75,000 people. On Jan. 19, 2024, the Defendant learned of suspicious activity involving a third-party service provider that the Defendant uses for archiving communications. In response, the Defendant launched an investigation, ultimately confirming that an unauthorized person was able to access a CUSO employee's email account between Dec. 19, 2023 and Jan. 19, 2024. On Oct. 28, 2024, the Defendant filed a notice of data breach with the Attorney General of Maine. To date, the Defendant has yet to notify individuals who were affected by the Data Breach of the root cause of the Data Breach, the vulnerabilities exploited, and the remedial measures undertaken to ensure such a breach does not occur again, the suit claims. The Plaintiff has sustained actual injuries because of the Data Breach. More specifically, the Plaintiff has received a fraud alert from a monitoring service, has experienced unauthorized activity in at least one online account, and has been receiving unsolicited communications designed to trick the Plaintiff into disclosing further personal information, the suit asserts. The Defendant is a broker-dealer and subsidiary of Atria Wealth, specializing in serving credit unions and banks along with bank or credit union-owned broker-dealers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com CVS PHARMACY: Mislabels Diphenhydramine-Based Sleep-Aids, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MEGHAN MCINTIRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02129-BTM-MSB (S.D. Cal., November 13, 2024) seeks relief on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers who have been allegedly misled by Defendant's false and misleading statements of its diphenhydramine-based sleep-aids in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels its Acetaminophen PM Extra Strength Pain Reliever, Nighttime Sleep-Aid Diphenhydramine HCl Product as "non habit-forming." However, Diphenhydramine elicits a cocaine-like pattern of stimulation of dopamine transmission that can lead to misuse of medications containing diphenhydramine. In short, users can become dependent on diphenhydramine if they take it continuously for a period of time and continuous use may cause it to stop working as well, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members were injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct because (1) they would not have purchased the Product if they had known that the Product was habit-forming; (2) they overpaid for the Product because the Products are sold at a price premium due to Defendant's misrepresentations; or (3) they received products that were worthless for their intended purpose, the suit further alleges. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, 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 bscott@bursor.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com\ - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com DAVID CASEY: Vargo Wins Summary Judgment on Federal Clause Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR VARGO and CARIJEAN BUHK, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. DAVID CASEY, Wisconsin Secretary of Revenue, Case No. 3:20-cv-01109-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge James Peterson entered an order that: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their federal takings clause claim, is granted. 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment, is granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment is granted as to Count II of the third amended complaint. The motion is denied in all other respects. 3. Not later than Nov. 29, 2024, plaintiffs must submit a proposed declaration and injunction that precisely identifies the relief they are seeking, along with a supporting brief. Defendant has until Dec. 13, 2024, to respond to plaintiffs' proposal. The Plaintiffs have until Dec. 20, 2024, to reply. In sum, the Secretary has failed to offer any meritorious defense to plaintiffs' claim that the UPA's interest-payment provisions violate the Takings Clause by failing to guarantee the just compensation as established in Goldberg. So the court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on count one of the third amended complaint. The Plaintiffs are owners of unclaimed property in the Secretary's custody under the UPA. Their property was not earning interest before the state took custody. Plaintiffs contend that the UPA's interest-payment provisions violate the Takings Clause by denying them earnings on their unclaimed property, which they allege is likely to be more than the federal rate prescribed by the statute. The court later granted Buhk's motion for class certification and appointed her as representative for the following class: "All persons or entities (including their heirs, assignees, legal representatives, guardians, administrators, and successors in interest) who have property in the form of money that is $100 or more in the State of Wisconsin's custody under the Wisconsin Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act that was non-interest bearing at the time it was delivered to the state, and whose claim is allowed under Wis. Stat. section 177.0904(2)." The class does not include states and governmental units or subdivisions of states. Plaintiffs Victor Vargo and Carijean Buhk are owners of unclaimed property that is currently in state custody pursuant to the UPA. Buhk's unclaimed property consists of an outstanding check from Prudential Financial Inc. for $284.40, which was transferred to the state in December 2006. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8iVyd3 at no extra charge.[CC] DESTINATION XL: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Destination XL Group, Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-04197-KMM-DLM (D. Minn., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.dxl.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") 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 (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers men's big and tall apparel for sale including, but not limited to, shirts, pants, activewear, outerwear, suits, shoes, accessories, undergarments, loungewear, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com DIAMOND SOURCE: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Diamond Source NYC, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-08654 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.diamondsourcenyc.com (hereinafter "Diamondsourcenyc.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Diamondsourcenyc.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Diamond Source NYC's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Diamondsourcenyc.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com DILIGENT ACQUISITIONS: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTINE FRANCISCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DILIGENT ACQUISITIONS LLC, DILIGENT SERVICES LLC, and DILIGENT HEALTH LLC, D/B/A DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS., Case No. 4:24-cv-04468 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 14, 2024) alleges that, on July 11, 2024, DDS lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals, impacting several thousands of current and former employees, including Plaintiff. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including name, Social Security number, address, and date of birth. On Nov. 5, 2024–four months after the Data Breach first occurred -- DDS finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII.   As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has spent time and made reasonable efforts to mitigate the impact of the Data Breach, including but not limited to researching the Data Breach, reviewing credit card and financial account statements, changing his online account passwords, placing a credit freeze through all the three main credit bureaus, and monitoring Plaintiff's credit information, says the suit. DDS is a nationwide transportation, shipping, and logistics service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com DIRECT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Direct Digital Holdings 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 a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On May 23, 2024, an alleged stockholder, purportedly on behalf of the persons or entities who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of the Company between April 2023 and March 2024, filed a putative class action against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to alleged false or misleading disclosures made by the Company in its public filings. On July 9, 2024, another alleged stockholder filed a similar securities class action against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, also in the Southern District of Texas. The two actions have been consolidated. Each of these complaints seeks unspecified damages, plus costs, fees, and attorneys' fees. The Company cannot make any predictions about the final outcome of this matter or the timing thereof but believes that plaintiffs' claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Direct Digital Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. [BN] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must File Class Cert Response by Jan. 7, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.Y., et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03056 (D.D.C., Filed Oct. 28, 2024), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order that the Defendants shall respond to the motion to certify class on or before Jan. 7, 2025, and that the Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of that motion on or before Jan. 14, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.Y., et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03056-CJN (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and hold the responsive pleading deadline in abeyance. The Defendants District of Columbia and Sam Abed (collectively, the District) move under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) to alter their deadlines to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for class certification [2] and to respond to the Complaint. Currently, the District's opposition to Plaintiff's class certification motion is today, November 13, 2024; and the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is November 20, 2024. The District requests that its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be due on Jan. 7, 2025, with Plaintiffs' reply due Jan. 14, 2025; and that the Court hold the responsive pleading deadline in abeyance at least until the Dec. 12, 2024 hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction [7], with the Court to set an appropriate date at that time. The District is currently preparing its response to the motion for preliminary injunction, which is an exceptionally time-consuming task. Because that briefing will necessarily consider Plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits and certain aspects of Plaintiffs' request for class-wide relief, addressing that motion before the District prepares a responsive pleading or opposes class certification is likely to refine the legal and factual issues at stake and result in both party and judicial economy. Additionally, the District requires additional time to fully evaluate the allegations in the Complaint and the particular arguments raised in the motion for class certification, especially in light of the complexity of the issues addressed in those pleadings, the undersigned’s other professional commitments, and the upcoming holidays. No other deadlines would be affected by the relief requested in this Motion. Plaintiffs consent, so no party would be prejudiced. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=96bMS0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Stephanie E. Litos, Esq. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION - and - Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. CHIEF, EQUITY SECTION, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION Honey Morton, Esq. ASSISTANT CHIEF, EQUITY SECTION Brendan Heath, Esq. Amanda C. Pescovitz, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL 400 Sixth Street, N.W., Suite 10100 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 442-9880 E-mail: brendan.heath@dc.gov DMCG INC: Parties Seek to Vacate Class Cert Hearings ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT ABEYTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DMCG, INC., dba BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-07089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: (1) vacating the hearings on Plaintiff's motion to certify class and to strike customer declarations, and stay briefing on those motions; (2) setting a deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for preliminary approval of Dec. 6, 2024; and (3) scheduling a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval for Jan. 10, 2025 at 10:00am. DMCG is an Engineering Firm incorporated since 2000. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6lFnmn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Yaman Salahi, Esq. Natasha J. Fernández-Silber, Esq. Julian Zhu, Esq. EDELSON PC 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 Facsimile: (415) 373-9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ysalahi@edelson.com nfernandezsilber@edelson.com jzhu@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Gary A. Nye, Esq. Muhammed T. Hussain, Esq. ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI, LLP 5900 Canoga Avenue, Suite 450 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992-9999 Facsimile: (818) 992-9991 E-mail: gan@rpnalaw.com mth@rpnalaw.com EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL: Wins Summary Judgment v. Lopez --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUILLERMINA LOPEZ, v. EMBRY-RIDDLE AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY, INC., Case No. 6:22-cv-01580-PGB-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron entered an order as follows: 1. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this action because the Plaintiff lacks standing. Thus, the case is dismissed without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she suffered an injury in fact, and the Defendant is thus entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's lack of standing, the Court says. The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the element of redressability. Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff's lack of standing. IV. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has breached its fiduciary duties under provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant breached its fiduciary duties to the Plan and the Plan participants through its mismanagement of the Plan. (Doc. 1). As a result, Plaintiff contends that Defendant cost Plan participants millions of dollars in savings. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in July 2019. Upon becoming a Plan participant, the Plaintiff did not select any specific investment options under the Plan. For that reason, the Plaintiff's funds were placed in the QDIA that matched her age and likely retirement date, which was the Vanguard Target Date Retirement 2035 Fund. Embry-Riddle is a private university focused on aviation and aerospace programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Lhzyc2 at no extra charge.[CC] EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Seeks Notice Plan Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES, individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Dec. 9, 2024, will move for an order: 1. Approving the proposed notice plan and the content of the notice documents; 2. Requiring notice to commence on Jan. 14, 2025; 3. Requiring Defendant EEP to provide the contact names and email addresses of potential Class Members to Digital Settlement Group, LLC for purposes of implementing direct e-mail notice no later than Dec. 27, 2024; and 4. Allowing class members 45 days to opt-out. On Sept. 5, 2024, this Court entered the Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, which certified the following Class: "All persons in the State of California who purchased at least one of the Products, for personal use and not for re-sale, since Jan. 30, 2019." The term "Products" in the class definition means all Calico Critters flocked toys that were sold with a small part. A list of the Calico Critters toys at issue is attached to this Order as Appendix A. Excluded from the class are Defendants, their officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants and/or their officers and directors; and the judicial officers and their immediate family and associated staff assigned to this case. The Plaintiff proposes a notice plan for the Court's consideration and approval so that members of the Class (“Class Members”) may be informed of the pendency of this class action and their right to opt-out of the Class. Epoch is a toy company that offers entertaining products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uMLfLq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Sara D. Avila, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. David F. Slade, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com sara@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com slade@waykayslay.com - and - Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. Philip Kovnat, Esq. DURHAM, PITTARD & SPALDING, LLP 505 Cerillos Rd., Ste. A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505)986-0600 E-mail: jkaufman@dpslawgroup.com pkovnat@dpslawgroup.com - and - Jack Walker, Esq. MARTIN WALKER 121 N. Spring Ave. Tyler, TX 75702 Telephone: (903)526-1600 E-mail: jwalker@martinwalker.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Pena Loses Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jose Pena v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:22-cv-01115-SSS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order denying Mrs. Pena's motion for class certification and Experian's motion for reconsideration. Mrs. Pena is a successor-in-interest in the dark on a key matter relating to this case such that she is not subject to Experian's statute of limitations defense. But all other class members will be. This begs the question of how Mrs. Pena will litigate others' statute of limitations issues when she herself will not be troubled by it. Because of her unique position, Mrs. Pena's interests do not "align[] with the interests of the class." Further, Mrs. Pena is the only class representative. There is no "'broad composition of the representative parties' that might adequately represent the interests of [class] members who do not face similar limitations issues." Therefore, the Court concludes Mrs. Pena is an atypical representative of the class she seeks to represent and her Motion is denied. Experian argues the Court did not consider how additional discovery would not change that Mrs. Pena is subject to the two-year statute of limitations and Mr. Pena's credit report was not inaccurate. The Motion for Reconsideration is dependent on Mrs. Pena as the named plaintiff. Because the Court has found Mrs. Pena an atypical representative and denied her Motion for Class Certification, Experian's Motion for Reconsideration is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Mrs. Pena seeks to certify a class of persons for whom Experian delivered a credit report to a third-party containing billing codes indicating an OFAC hit. She alleges Experian violated FCRA's mandate to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of consumer's credit reports. Experian is a credit reporting agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QBl1OG at no extra charge.[CC] EXTREME NETWORKS: Class Cert Hearing Set for April 28, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement Security Funds, v. Extreme Networks, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05102-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a class certification order as follows: 1. Trial Date: March 29, 2027 2. Final Pretrial Conference: March 4, 2027 3. Dispositive Motions: Last day to file dispositive motions: Oct. 22, 2026 Last day to be heard: Dec. 8, 2026, 4. Fact Discovery Cut-Off: July 6, 2026 5. Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 24, 2026 6. Class Certification Hearing: April 28, 2026 7. Last Day To Amend Pleading: Feb. 14, 2025 8. Lead Counsel/Lead Plaintiff Hearing: Jan. 7, 2025 Extreme Networks provides wired and wireless network infrastructure equipment, software, and services for enterprises, and data centers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1YZSyg at no extra charge.[CC] EZ FESTIVALS: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Avchukov ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Avchukov, et al. v. Avant Gardner, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08197 (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: Bid to Extend Class Cert Briefing OK'd in Brockmole ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCKMOLE, et al., v. EZ FESTIVALS LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08106-VM (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: Court Extends Deadlines for Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ting, et al. v Avant Gardner 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 FOODTOWN INC: Sumlin Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Foodtown, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08601 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a civil rights action against Foodtown for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.foodtown.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On October 18, 2024, the Plaintiff searched for a local grocery store on Google and found Foodtown.com. Due to the upcoming holidays, he intended to find a store with affordable prices and a rich selection of groceries and household essentials. While browsing the site, he encountered accessibility issues such as an incorrect heading hierarchy, interactive elements that did not match the visible label text, and a cart button that did not announce its value correctly. These issues made the experience frustrating and impossible to complete. He tried to learn more information about the goods and services offered by the company and wanted to buy groceries, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Foodtown's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Foodtown, Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers baby, bakery, beer, dairy, deli, hair, beauty, meat, pantry, pet, sea food, personal care, kitchen, and home products. Foodtown serves customers in the States of New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.[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 FRESH BELLIES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FRESH BELLIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08586 (S.D.N.Y., November 12, 2024) arises from 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 Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress from Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fresh Bellies, Inc. operates the Fresh Bellies interactive website, https://freshbellies.com/, which allows consumers to access the goods and services including information about baby food, snacks, and meals. [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 GENERAL DYNAMICS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- General Dynamics Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2024, that on October 6, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against General Dynamics Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries and various other companies alleging that they conspired, in violation of the Sherman Act, not to solicit naval architects and marine engineers from each other. On April 19, 2024, the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs initiated an appeal of the dismissal of their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 20, 2024. The named plaintiffs purport to represent a class of individuals consisting of all naval architects and marine engineers employed by the shipyard and consultancy defendants, their predecessors, their subsidiaries and/or their related entities in the United States at any time since January 1, 2000. The plaintiffs allege that the conspiracy suppressed compensation paid to the putative class members, and the plaintiffs seek trebled monetary damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive and other equitable relief. We are defending the matter. General Dynamics is a global aerospace and defense company that specializes in high-end design, engineering and manufacturing of a broad portfolio of products and services in business aviation, ship construction and repair, land combat vehicles, weapons systems and munitions and technology products and services. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Rivera Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL RIVERA, and DAVID CRUZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, a wholly owned subsidiary of GIVAUDAN FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES, INC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of GIVAUDAN UNITED STATES, INC., which is wholly owned by GIVAUADAN S.A., the parent company and a publicly traded Swiss company, and XYZ ENTITIES 1-10 (fictitious names of unknown liable entities), Case No. 2:23-cv-21387-MEF-JSA (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order conditionally certifying this case as a collective action and permitting court supervised notification to putative collective members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Givaudan Flavors manufactures and sells fragrances and flavor products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l6QuZt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michele A. Moreno, Esq. Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jenny S. Brejt, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 - and - Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 GOODRX INC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Price Deal Conspiracy --------------------------------------------------------------- GREY DOG IV d/b/a/ ETHOS WELLNESS/PHARMACY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. GOODRX, INC. and GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-09858 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2024) is an antitrust action under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act on behalf of independent pharmacies, which are the lifeblood of the United States' healthcare system, arising from an illegal agreement to suppress the prices paid by Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication. The Co-Conspirator PBMs, since as late as Jan. 1, 2024, allegedly engaged in an unlawful price-fixing arrangement in the United States market for generic prescription medication reimbursement to independent pharmacies, like the Plaintiff and Class members. As part of GoodRx's Integrated Savings Program ("ISP"), each of the Co-Conspirator PBMs agreed to supply competitively sensitive information to GoodRx and, using that competitively sensitive information, GoodRx works as a common decisionmaker to set the rates for reimbursement by PBMs to independent pharmacies for generic prescription medication, the suit says. Because of the dominant independent and collective market shares of the Co-Conspirator PBMs and the role of GoodRx in the ISP program, independent pharmacies are given little to no alternative but to accept the subpar rebates and rates of reimbursement for generic prescription medication offered to them. The scheme's participants benefit as follows: GoodRx benefits through a cut of each transaction made through the ISP program (approximately $5 per transaction, leading to what GoodRx calls a "$200 million growth opportunity") and the Co-Conspirator PBMs neutralize horizontal competition in the Relevant Market between each other, asserts the suit. Plaintiff Grey Dog IV is a business entity with its principal place of business located in Key Biscayne, Miami-Dade County, Florida. GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy information services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - James L. Ferraro, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305)375-0111 E-mail: jferraro@ferrarolaw.com - and - Jason R. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888)749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Blake Hunter Yagman, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com byagman@leedsbrownlaw.com GREAT FROG: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Great Frog New York, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08597 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.thegreatfroglondon.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On October 22, 2024, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase new jewelry items. As she tried to find a local store that could offer a rich collection of artisanal pieces, she found the Defendant's website. Upon entering the website and trying to find a bracelet, she encountered multiple accessibility issues, including the absence of a bypass block and ambiguous link titles. When she attempted to add products to Cart, the size selection combo box failed to announce that it was a required field, causing confusion as to why the Add to Cart button was unavailable. These access barriers have caused Thegreatfroglondon.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Great Frog New York's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. The Great Frog New York, Ltd. operates the website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view rings, pendants, bracelets, earrings, chains, cufflinks, charms, sunglasses, clothing and accessories.[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 GRUBHUB INC: Faces Class Action for Embedding TikTok Software ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Black, writing for The Recorder, reports that GrubHub was slapped on Monday, November 18, with a proposed class action lawsuit that accuses the food delivery service of allegedly siphoning consumer data to TikTok parent ByteDance. What You Need to Know -- A Newport Beach firm filed a class action against food delivery service GrubHub for allegedly violating California's "Trap and Trace" law. -- The complaint accuses GrubHub of embedding TikTok software on its website that siphons user data to its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. -- Attorneys for the plaintiff claim that the installation of such software poses national security risks. GrubHub has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit that accuses the app-based food ordering and delivery service of funneling consumer data to TikTok parent ByteDance and contributing to a national security threat from China. Pacific Trial Attorneys in Newport Beach filed the complaint, which alleged violations of California's "Trap and Trace" law under the California Invasion of Privacy Act, on Monday, November 18, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Counsel has not yet appeared for the defendant. Pacific Trial Attorneys declined to comment on pending litigation. Robert Tauler, an attorney at Los Angeles firm Tauler Smith who frequently litigates trap and trace class actions in California, said this is the first instance he's seen of such a case targeting a food delivery platform. "Ordinarily you don't see actions like this against food delivery apps because when you go on the application, you sign your life away in terms of use [that] nobody reads," he said. According to the complaint, GrubHub, a Chicago-based service founded in 2004, embedded software created by short-form video platform TikTok, which is owned by Beijing-based company ByteDance, on grubhub.com to identify and track website visitors. The software allegedly siphons data from anonymous grubhub.com visitors and pairs it with stored data that TikTok has collected from "hundreds of millions of Americans" in a process called "fingerprinting." "With [companies like] Meta, there's at least theoretical accountability," said Tauler. "Here, everybody knows it's going to a black box . . . Eventually, there has to be a reckoning. Surveilling people should not be a commercial reality." The complaint notes that GrubHub's privacy policy explicitly states it does not "sell communications content to third parties or share it with third parties for cross-context behavioral advertising" or "for business or commercial purposes." The policy later clarifies that it "may use or disclose personal information for a specific purpose not contemplated by this Privacy Policy" but will "specifically disclose" that use to visitors and, "when necessary, obtain [their] consent." Section 638.51, or California's "Trap and Trace" law, prohibits companies from installing or using a pen register or trap and trace device, which record outgoing and incoming electronic or wire communication signals, respectively, without users' consent. CIPA grants plaintiffs a private right of action that includes $5,000 in statutory damages. The complaint against GrubHub joins a tidal wave of such trap and trace claims that have emerged in the wake of a precedent-setting 2023 Southern District Court ruling. In Greenley v. Kochava, Judge Cynthia Bashant updated the definition of a "pen register" under CIPA to include software that "identifies consumers, gathers data, and correlates data through unique fingerprinting." Tauler said that the class action is distinctive because it situates the CIPA claim in the broader context of political narratives "that are critical of the surveillance economy and TikTok in particular." The complaint cites a 2023 investigative report published by cybersecurity firm Feroot finding that the TikTok tracking pixel "immediately links to data harvesting platforms that pick off usernames and passwords, credit card and banking information and details about users' personal health" and transmits "names, passwords and authentication codes" to countries such as China and Russia. It also refers to a 2023 CNN analysis of testimony from a former ByteDance employee, who alleged that the Chinese Communist Party accesses TikTok user data through "backdoor" channels and used the app to surveill pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong in 2018. "By sharing plaintiff's and class members' personal and de-anonymized data withTikTok, Defendant effectively 'doxed' them to America's most formidable geopolitical adversary," wrote attorneys for the plaintiff. In April, President Joe Biden signed a bill into law ordering ByteDance to divest the TikTok app in nine months or face a ban in the United States. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to "save" TikTok ahead of the January 2025 deadline, the same month as his inauguration, despite being the first to issue an executive order banning the app during his 2020 presidential term. "This lawsuit is without merit and we plan to defend ourselves against these false allegations," said a Grubhub spokesperson in an emailed statement. [GN] HEALTH CARE: Dunckel Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Emmeline Dunckel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-11740 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendant's failure to pay its Medical Management Specialists all earned overtime wages. The Defendant classified all Medical Management Specialists, including Plaintiff, as exempt from state and federal overtime laws and did not pay them overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per week. The Defendant paid Plaintiff and other Medical Management Specialists a salary. The Plaintiff and other Medical Management Specialists regularly worked over 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Medical Management Specialist. The Defendant is a health insurance company that provides health insurance to over 23 million people.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis M. Hedgpeth, Esq. THE HEDGPETH LAW FIRM, PC 3050 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 510 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (281) 572-0727 Email: travis@hedgpethlaw.com HEARST TELEVISION: Saunders Allowed Leave to File Reply ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders et al v. Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., Filed May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting motion for leave to file reply in support of class certification and motion for extension of time to file response to defendant's Daubert motion. -- Given the availability of defendant's experts for deposition, Therrien's reply and opposition are due by Dec. 18, 2024. -- Counsel using the Electronic Case Filing System should file the documents for which leave to file have been granted in accordance with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures. The nature of suit states Statutory Actions. Hearst Television, Inc. (formerly Hearst-Argyle Television) is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by Hearst Communications.[CC] HEMATITE LAND: Juan Files Suit Over Deceptive SCE Strategy ---------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO E. JUAN, on his own behalf and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEMATITE LAND PARTNERS LLC; HEMATITE AGGREGATES LLC; PARTNERSHIP REPRESENTATIVE MANAGEMENT LLC; ORNSTEIN-SCHULER GROUP LLC; ORNSTEIN-SCHULER INVESTMENTS LLC; ORNSTEIN-SCHULER CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC; WEIBEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.; ECOVENTURES LLC; GALT MINING LLC; JASON D. BROWN; Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-81421 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2024) involves a multi-year fraudulent scheme by a group of supposedly independent and respected financial investment professionals who knowingly conspired to develop, promote, sell and implement a tax-savings strategy, commonly known as a Syndicated Conservation Easement Strategy. According to the complaint, the Defendants, collectively and through a criminal conspiracy, leveraged their expertise, experience, and reputation to induce Plaintiffs and hundreds of other clients across several of the United States to participate in numerous transactions involving the SCE Strategy by promoting the SCE Strategy as a legitimate tax-savings product. By design, the SCE Strategy involved complex partnership structures and a series of steps that required specialized knowledge of conservation easements and highly technical tax laws and regulations. But beneath these complex structures hid the truth (which was purposefully obscured from Plaintiffs, other clients, and the Internal Revenue Service): the SCE Strategy was simply an attempt by Defendants to convey a substantial real estate interest to a co-conspiring charity, after fraudulently and grossly inflating its value, and sell the corresponding tax deduction to Plaintiffs and other clients for lucrative professional fees, asserts the suit. As alleged herein, the SCE Strategy provided to Plaintiffs was not properly and legitimately valued or implemented and was never intended to be. It also intentionally did not comply with Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Defendants were on notice of such illegitimacy, says the complaint. Hematite Land Partners LLC is an Alabama limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph I. Pardo, Esq. PARDO LAW PLLC 1205 Lincoln Road, Suite 211 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Telephone: (305) 308-7388 Email: joe@pardolawmiami.com - and - Adam J. Smith, Esq. BIZTX LAW, P.A. 11940 S Baypoint Cir Parkland, FL 33076 Telephone: (954) 824-1997 Facsimile: (954) 689-2826 Email: asmith@biztxlaw.com HIGHMARK INC: Mollinea Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Cathy Mollinea, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Highmark Incorporated, doing business as: Highmark Health Plan doing business as: Highmark BlueCross Blue Shield doing business as: HIGHMARK BLUE SHIELD; HIGHMARK HEALTH; Case No. 2:24-cv-01080 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Nov. 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01572-DSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Highmark -- https://www.highmark.com/ -- is an American non-profit healthcare company and Integrated Delivery Network based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Joseph Weiler, Esq. Weiler Law PLLC 5050 N 40th St., Ste. 260 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Phone: (480) 442-3410 Fax: (480) 442-3410 Email: jweiler@weilerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Alex G Mahfood Justin J. Kontul REED SMITH LLP - PITTSBURGH, PA 225 5th Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 288-3158 Fax: (412) 288-3063 Email: amahfood@reedsmith.com kontul@reedsmith.com - and - Bruce Edward Samuels Lauren Ann Crawford PAPETTI SAMUELS WEISS MCKIRGAN LLP 16430 N Scottsdale Rd., Ste. 290 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Phone: (480) 800-3530 Email: bsamuels@pswmlaw.com lcrawford@pswmlaw.com HOT TOPIC INC: Garcia Files Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hot Topic, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HOT TOPIC, INC. d/b/a HOT TOPIC and BOXLUNCH, Case No. 2:24-cv-09856 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Hot Topic, Inc. -- http://www.hottopic.com/-- is an American retail chain specializing in counterculture-related clothing and accessories, as well as licensed music.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Ste 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com HUT 8 CORP: Parties Must Submit Full Briefing on Bid to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------------- Hut 8 Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2024, that the Court directed the parties to submit full briefing on a motion to dismiss, with briefing scheduled to conclude on February 18, 2025. In February and March 2024, two purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The two class actions were consolidated into In re Hut 8 Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 24-cv-00904 (VM), and lead plaintiff was appointed on April 19, 2024. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 14, 2024. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The parties exchanged and filed letters regarding the consolidated amended complaint. Hut 8 is a crypto currency and data mining company.[BN] INARI MEDICAL: Faces Consolidated Stockholder Suit Over Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------------- Inari Medical, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2024, that on May 13, 2024, purported stockholder Michiana Area Electrical Workers' Pension Fund filed a verified class action complaint on behalf of itself and similarly situated Inari stockholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned "Michiana Area Elec. Workers' (MAEW) Pension Fund v. Inari Medical, Inc.," No. 1:24-cv-03686-JHR. Action alleges the company and certain of its officer and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements regarding the company's revenue and expenses. On July 12, 2024, a group of pension funds consisting of Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Systems, Local 353, I.B.E.W. Pension Fund, and City of Pontiac Reestablished General Employees' Retirement System, Mr. Hartmann, and purported stockholder Arvin Nazerzadeh-Yazdi, each filed motions seeking to consolidate all related actions, be appointed lead plaintiff, and have their counsel appointed lead counsel. The matter is at a preliminary stage. Inari Medical, Inc. builds and markets a variety of medical products, including minimally invasive, novel, catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy systems for the unique characteristics of specific disease states. INTEL CORP: Brown Sues Over Sale of Defective Processors -------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA BROWN, WILLIAM J. CHARLTON, JR., NICHOLAS LIPINSKI, THEATRICAL CONCEPTS, INC., TODD WOLVEN, and MELANIE LOYER RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. INTEL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01258-UNA (D. Del., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of express warranty, violations of Delaware's Consumer Fraud Act, the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, the New York False Advertising Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, fraud by omission or fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, marketing, and sale of Intel's Core 13th and 14th Generation Desktop Central Processing Units with alleged defect. According to the complaint, the defect causes the processors to call for elevated voltage during idle or light activity periods when installed in personal computers. The elevated voltage has caused and can still cause catastrophic and permanent damage to the processors that cannot be repaired. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered damages. Intel Corporation is a semiconductor manufacturing corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. R. Grant Dick IV, Esq. Dean R. Roland, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 Facsimile: (302) 984-3939 Email: ckeener@coochtaylor.com gdick@coochtaylor.com droland@coochtaylor.com - and - Darren T. Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN GORE LLP 346 Westbury Ave., Suite 200 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (212) 999-7370 Facsimile: (404) 537-3320 Email: dkaplan@kaplangore.com IRONBEAM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. IRONBEAM, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08643 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2024) sue the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://ironbeam.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Sept. 13, 2024, in an attempt to learn how to trade futures with Ironbeam from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Herrera is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Ironbeam, Inc., operates the Ironbeam internet futures broker and trading platform.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal ISLAND CELLULAR: Ponniah Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damien Ponniah, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ISLAND CELLULAR GROUP, INC. d/b/a Island Cellular and Ashish Kapoorthe a/k/a Joe, Case No. 1:24-cv-08703 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") alleges that he is entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally: compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage; unpaid wages for overtime work for which Plaintiff did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law; and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, because Defendants' violations were willful and lacked a good faith basis. The Defendants never paid Plaintiff any overtime premium for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff the overtime bonus for overtime hours he worked was willful and lacked a good faith basis. The Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff an additional hour's pay at least equal to the New York City minimum wage in effect during the relevant time period for each day he worked a shift lasting in excess of ten hours from start to finish ("spread-of-hours premium"). The Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff The spread-of-hours premiums for each day he worked a shift lasting in excess of ten hours from start to finish was willful and lacked a good faith basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed at Island Cellular store from July 2022 to April 30, 2024. The Defendants owned and operated an Island Cellular, AT&T franchise store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway, Suite 6085 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com J&T RESTAURANTS: Parties Seek Approval of Notice Issuance --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICAH GIBLAINT and CHLOE HOSEK, and others similarly situated, v. J&T RESTAURANTS ROUND ROCK, L.L.C.; J&T RESTAURANTS 2, L.L.C.; GKSD CREEKSIDE, L.L.C.; GKSD ANDERSON LANE, L.L.C.; GKSD CEDAR PARK, L.L.C.; GKSD RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; GKSD2 RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.; JACK GILMORE and TOM KAMM, Case No. 1:24-cv-00909-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask that the Court to enter an order: 1) requiring the Defendants to furnish the Plaintiffs' counsel for the putative class (a) a complete and accurate list of the names, (b) last known addresses, and (c) last known email addresses to the extent available. The parties request that the Order provide that the Defendants will furnish the aforementioned information within 21 days of entry of the Order by the Court. The parties also request that for any mailed Notice and Consent Form returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address, the Defendant be required to furnish Plaintiff's counsel with the last four digits of those individual's social security numbers within three (3) business days of request by Plaintiff's counsel; and, 2) approving the issuance of notice and consent to join forms submitted by the Parties herewith. This matter is filed as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action, and Plaintiffs claims that they, and others similarly situated to them, were not properly paid the federally mandated minimum wage during their employment with Defendants. Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants retained tips which Defendants should have paid to them as food servers. The Parties, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), file this Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action and request that this Court enter the Agreed Order filed herewith requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with names and last known addresses and email addresses of all current and former employees within the class defined below: The Parties request entry of an Agreed Order permitting, under court supervision, notice to: All current and former food servers, also known as waiters or waitresses, except Lead Servers, employed by Defendants at any time during the three (3) years preceding the date the Order for Notice is entered. The Parties agree and stipulate that the class as defined consists of individuals who are similarly situated to Plaintiffs only for purposes of this Court ordering Notice, and Defendants reserve all other rights. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HRrz0F at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles K. Scalise, Esq. ROSS • SCALISE LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawgroup.com - and - Alicia Duleba, Esq. Brooke Jones, Esq. JACKSON WALKER 100 Congress Avenue, Ste.1100 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 236-2224 Facsimile: (512) 391-2115 E-mail: aduleba@jw.com bajones@jw.com JAMAICA SERVICE: Class Settlement in Wilson Lawsuit Gets Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson v. Jamaica Service Program for Older Adults, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01263 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan entered an order that the settlement is approved, the class is certified for purposes of settlement, and the case is dismissed. -- As to class certification, the plaintiff has presented evidence that the additional plaintiffs were similarly situated, and defendants do not contest certification. -- Importantly, each opt-in plaintiff signed the settlement agreement, obviating the need for a two-step approval process. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Jamaica Service Program for Older Adults is a multi-service social service agency founded in 1972.[CC] JOHN CARROLL: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN CARROLL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08638 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.bkstr.com/johncarrollstore, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 22, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a John Carroll University Blue Streaks Fleece Crewneck from Defendant, and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. 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. John Carroll University is a private Jesuit university in University Heights, Ohio. It operates the JCU online interactive Website and retail store across the United States.[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: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Parties Seek Amendment of Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC., GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., and CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00629-JKW-LRL (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the existing scheduling order as to class certification and damages expert report and deposition deadlines. Event Prior Deadline Amended Deadline Deadline for any motion to amend Nov. 5, 2024 Nov. 5, 2024 pleadings, except upon a showing of good cause: Fact discovery deadline Feb. 10, 2025 Feb. 10, 2025 Deadline for plaintiffs to file June 2, 2025 Apr. 30, 2025 motion for class certification and opening class/damages reports: Deadline for defendants to oppose July 7, 2025 June 25, 2025 motion for class certification and serve corresponding class/damages reports: Deadline for plaintiffs to file July 30, 2025 July 30, 2025 reply brief in support of class certification and corresponding class/damages rebuttal reports: Deadline to depose class/damages N/A Aug. 8, 2025 Experts: Johnson & Johnson is an American multinational pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical technologies corporation. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3d1yHD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq. Marc C. Greco, Esq. Kip A. Harbison, Esq. Michael A. Glasser, Esq. GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C. Crown Center, Suite 600 580 East Main Street Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-6787 Facsimile: (757) 625-5959 E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com marcg@glasserlaw.com kip@glasserlaw.com michael@glasserlaw.com - and - Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Hannah W. Brennan, Esq. Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq. Hannah Schwarzschild, Esq. Audley Fuller, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com hannahb@hbsslaw.com abbyeo@hbsslaw.com whitneyst@hbsslaw.com hannahs@hbsslaw.com rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com audleyf@hbsslaw.com - and - Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq. Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. Raymond Girnys, Esq. Charles Kopel, Esq. Noelle Ruggiero, Esq. Alexis Castillo, 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 RGirnys@lowey.com CKopel@lowey.com NRuggiero@lowey.com ACastillo@lowey.com - and - John Radice, Esq. April Lambert, Esq. Kenneth Pickle, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C. 475 Wall Street Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (646) 245-8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com alambert@radicelawfirm.com kpickle@radicelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. George G. Gordon, Esq. Julia E. Chapman, Esq. Katherine E. Unger Davis, Esq. Carla G. Graff, Esq. Victoria B. King, Esq. Katherine A. Helm, Esq. Forrest E. Lovett, Esq. Judah Bellin, Esq. Amanda Antons, Esq. DECHERT LLP 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261-3300 E-mail: christina.sarchio@dechert.com george.gordon@dechert.com julia.chapman@dechert.com Katherine.ungerdavis@dechert.com carla.graff@dechert.com victoria.king@dechert.com khelm@dechert.com forrest.lovett@dechert.com judah.bellin@dechert.com amanda.antons@dechert.com - and - Kyle S. Kushner, Esq. LAWRENCE LAW, LLC The Warehouse at Camden Yards 323 West Camden Street, Suite 700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (667) 400-6301 E-mail: kyle@lawrencelawll.com JOHNSON, TN: Plaintiffs Seek to Continue Use of Daigle Audit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.P., H.A., and S.H. individually, and On behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order denying as moot Defendants' motion to disallow Plaintiffs' use of Daigle Audit and Report as a subsequent remedial measure, or, in the alternative, for an extension of their deadline to respond until Feb. 14, 2025, 14 days after the deadline for Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. Putting aside Defendants failure to specifically identify the material that they are seeking to exclude, the relief requested—to disallow "use" and "strike" references in Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (ECF 391)—cannot be granted because that motion is no longer pending. It would be a waste of judicial resources for the Court to consider the admissibility of evidence submitted in support of a motion that is moot, particularly here, where the renewed motion will be different in form and substance and is not due until January 31, 2025. On Oct. 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification. On Oct. 31, 2024, Defendants filed their Motion to Disallow. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Court issued a revised scheduling order instructing Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification on or before Jan. 31, 2025. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3RagLJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Julie C. Erickson, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Kevin M. Osborne, Esq. ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE LLP 44 Tehama St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 635-0631 E-mail: julie@eko.law elizabeth@eko.law kevin@eko.law - and - Heather Moore Collins, Esq. Ashley Shoemaker Walter, Esq. HMC CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, PLLC 7000 Executive Center Dr., Suite 320 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 724-1996 Facsimile: (615) 691-7019 E-mail: heather@hmccivilrights.com ashley@hmccivilrights.com - and - Vanessa Baehr-Jones, Esq. ADVOCATES FOR SURVIVORS OF ABUSE PC 4200 Park Boulevard No. 413 Oakland, CA 94602 Telephone: (510) 500-9634 E-mail: vanessa@advocatesforsurvivors.com The Defendants are represented by: K. Erickson Herrin, Esq. HERRIN, McPEAK & ASSOCIATES 515 East Unaka Avenue Johnson City, TN 37605-0629 E-mail: rachel@hbm-lawfirm.com - and - Emily C. Taylor, Esq. Maria Ashburn, Esq. WATSON, ROACH, BATSON & LAUDERBACK, P.L.C. Knoxville, TN 37901-0131 E-mail: etaylor@watsonroach.com mashburn@watsonroach.com - and - Jonathan P. Lakey, Esq. BURCH, PORTER, & JOHNSON, PLLC 130 N. Court Ave. Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 524-5000 E-mail: jlakey@bpjlaw.com mchrisman@bpjlaw.com - and - Kristin Ellis Berexa, Esq. Ben C. Allen, Esq. FARRAR BATES BEREXA 12 Cadillac Drive, Suite 480 Brentwood, TN 37027-5366 E-mail: kberexa@fbb.law ballen@fbb.law jdowd@fbb.law msutton@fbb.law gpatton@fbb.law - and - Keith H. Grant, Esq. Laura Rufolo, Esq. ROBINSON, SMITH & WELLS, PLLC 633 Chestnut Street, Suite 700 Chattanooga, TN 37450 kgrant@rswlaw.com lrufolo@rswlaw.com awells@rswlaw.com - and - Daniel H. Rader IV, Esq. MOORE, RADER AND YORK, P. C. Cookeville, TN 38502 Telephone: (931) 526-3311 Facsimile: (931) 526-3092 E-mail: danny@moorerader.com KENSINGTON SENIOR: Hollenbeck Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jennelyn Hollenbeck, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KENSINGTON SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company; ZAMIRA CALDERON, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2024CH09438 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-09913. The Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Defendant which sets forth the following 10 causes of action: 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 timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; violation of Labor Code; and, unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Nicky Jatana, Esq. Frank C. Olah, Esq. Trevor R. Witt, 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: Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Frank.Olah@jacksonlewis.com Trevor.Witt@jacksonlewis.com KIA FINANCE: Civil Standing Order Entered in Rodney Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLENNETTE RODNEY, v. KIA FINANCE AMERICA, Case No. 5:24-cv-02336-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered a civil standing order as follows: -- The plaintiff must promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and must comply with Local Rule 5-3 with respect to all proofs of service. -- Actions Any answers filed in state court must be e-filed in this Court, either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with Local Rule 6-1. -- Ex Parte Applications Counsel are reminded that ex parte applications are solely for extraordinary relief. Applications that do not explain why ex parte relief3 is justified and/or fail to satisfy the requirements established under Local Rule 7- 19 will not be considered. -- Invitation to Self-Identify Pronouns and Honorifics Litigants and counsel may indicate their pronouns and honorifics by filing a letter, adding the information in the name block or signature line of the pleadings, or verbally informing the Court when making an appearance. Kia Finance provides finance services to Kia dealers and their customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mbu4pm at no extra charge.[CC] KRAFT HEINZ: Parties Seek Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAFAEL PASZEK, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY dba KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY (LLC), a Pennsylvania limited liability company; PRIMAL NUTRITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01813-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order setting briefing schedule for the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and continue the Plaintiff's class certification deadline: 1. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is due by Jan. 10, 2025. 2. Plaintiff's opposition reply is due by Feb. 10, 2025. 3. Defendant's reply is due by Feb. 24, 2025. 4. Plaintiff motion for class certification currently is continued from March 21, 2025, to Aug. 21, 2025. On Aug. 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Joaquin, alleging 10 causes of action. On October 5, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Related Cases advising the Court and Plaintiff of the matter, Dakota Grede, et al. v Kraft Heinze Food Company, United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2:22-CV-01103-BHL ("Grede Action") which involves a FLSA collective and class action filed on September 22, 2022. Kraft Heinz is a food and beverage company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7eFvR1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Drexler, Esq. Molly Desario, Esq. Jonathan Lee, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com Molly.desario@capstonelawyers.com Jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron H. Cole, Esq. Vi N. Applen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: aaron.cole@ogletree.com vi.applen@ogletree.com LAMB WESTON: Redner's Markets Sues Over Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------- Redner's Markets, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.; Lamb Weston, Inc.; Lamb Weston BSW, LLC; Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc.; Lamb Weston Sales, Inc.; McCain Foods Limited; McCain Foods USA, Inc.; J.R. Simplot Co.; Cavendish Farms Ltd; Cavendish Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-11801 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought as a price-fixing case against the four dominant processors of frozen French fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products ("Frozen Potato Products") sold in the United States. Together, they control 97% or more of the $68 billion-per-year Frozen Potato Products market. By at least the start of 2021, Defendants conspired to fix the prices of their Frozen Potato Products above competitive levels. Defendants affected this price-fixing conspiracy through implementation of lockstep price increases that allowed them to realize unprecedented margins. This conspiracy has continued, unabated, to the present. Defendants have been able to increase the price of their Frozen Potato Products even after their input costs significantly declined. And to conceal their conspiracy, upon information and belief, at least LambWeston told its managers to communicate about competitor pricing and business intelligence using texting instead of emails to avoid creating emails that could be discovered in the event of an antitrust investigation. Although LambWeston managers obtained their competitors' price announcements, they were forbidden to email such announcements to C-suite executives so the latter could more plausibly deny receiving information about the announcements. The Defendants were able to implement lockstep price increases and collectively raise prices because their industry is structurally susceptible to collusion. The Frozen Potato Products Market features highly concentrated sellers, high entry barriers, fragmented buyers, repetitive purchases, inelastic demand, and opportunities to collude through common co-packing arrangements, trade association events, and mechanisms to exchange market share and likely other information enabling Defendants to implement and monitor their conspiracy, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potato Products at artificially inflated prices. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a leading producer, distributor, and marketer of value-added Frozen Potato Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. Justin N. Boley, Esq. WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 5450 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 346-222 Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com jnb@wbe-llp.com - and - Heidi M. Silton, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. Joseph C. Bourne, Esq. Craig S. Davis, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com jnservais@locklaw.com jcbourne@locklaw.com csdavis@locklaw.com - and - Kyle J. Pozan, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 1165 N. Clark Street, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60610 Phone: (312) 205-8968 Email: kjpozan@locklaw.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Catherine K. Smith, Esq. Emily B. Egart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 333-8844 Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com eegart@gustafsongluek.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE One Liberty Place 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (267) 507-6085 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com LEAF HOME: Bid for Class Cert in Sisco Suit Due Oct. 10, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAURA SISCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEAF HOME ENHANCEMENTS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01455-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered a case management order: 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. section 636(c). 3. The pleadings shall be amended and new parties shall be joined on or before December 16, 2024. 4. Electronically Stored Information. The parties agree to follow the default standard for discovery of electronically stored information (Appendix K to Northern District of Ohio Local Rules). 5. 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. 6. Non-expert discovery shall be completed by June 30, 2025. 7. 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 8. 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 is a direct-to-consumer provider of branded home solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pbJBzm at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Seeks Feb. 10, 2025 Class Cert Response Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIA CORTINAS, ADELINE CLARKE FOSS, TERESA MCINTYRE, KASANDRA VITACCA-MITCHELL, CHRISTOPHER MITCHELL, MARCUS ODUM, CASSANDRA ODUM, DONALD VILLA, JOAN VILLA, TANYA RAWLINS, SARAH BAIOTTO, BRENT BAIOTTO, and DARREN PETTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIANA, Case No. 5:22-cv-00544-OLG-HJB (W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting this Joint Motion such that the following deadlines will apply: a. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of Class Representatives and appointment of Class Counsel due by Feb. 10, 2025. b. Plaintiffs' reply relating to Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification, appointment of Class Representatives and appointment of Class Counsel due by March 3, 2025. On November 8, 2024, the parties jointly moved to extend this briefing schedule such that Plaintiffs' Response must be filed by November 20, 2024, and Defendants' Reply must be filed by December 6, 2024. The Court granted that motion by text order on November 12, 2024. In light of the above-described extensions relating to the briefing of Defendants' Consolidated Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, the parties also now jointly move to extend the briefing schedule for Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion such that Defendants must file a Response by February 10, 2025, and Plaintiffs must file a Reply by March 3, 2025. Counsel for the parties have met and conferred and have agreed upon this proposed briefing schedule. Additionally, Defendants contend that this schedule remains consistent with the Court’s schedule relating to summary judgment and class certification briefing as set out in the August 29 Order. The parties have good cause for an extension because there are numerous and complex issues in this case that will likely be resolved upon the resolution of Defendants’ Consolidated Motion for Summary Judgment. Liberty operates as an insurance company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SlveTt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Brandon McWherter, Esq. McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Blvd., Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354-1144 E-mail: brandon@msb.law - and - Shaun W. Hodge, Esq. THE HODGE LAW FIRM, PLLC The Historic Runge House 1301 Market St. Galveston, TX 77550 Telephone: (409) 762-5000 E-mail: shodge@hodgefirm.com - and - Erik D. Peterson, Esq. ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES, PSC 110 W. Vine Street, Suite 300 Lexington, KY 40507 Telephone: (800) 614-1957 E-mail: erik@eplo.law - and - T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq. SNODGRASS LAW, LLC 100 S. Fifth St., Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 448-2600 E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com The Defendants are represented by: David T. Moran, Esq. Christopher A. Thompson, Esq. Maggie Burreson, Esq. Michael J. Murtha, Esq. Marilyn Brown, Esq. Michael Roberts, Esq. Stephen A. Calhoun, Esq. JACKSON WALKER L.L.P. 2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6000 Facsimile: (214) 953-5822 E-mail: dmoran@jw.com cthompson@jw.com mburreson@jw.com mmurtha@jw.com mbrown@jw.com mroberts@jw.com scalhoun@jw.com LILIUM NV: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Kloster Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARKUS KLOSTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LILIUM N.V., KLAUS ROEWE, and JOHAN MALMQVIST, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-81428-RS (S.D.N.Y., November 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Lilium's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Bumble securities at artificially inflated prices between June 11, 2024, and November 3, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: that (1) they overstated the progress of the company's fundraising activities; (2) they overstated the likelihood and/or feasibility of obtaining sufficient funding to continue operations; (3) they failed to sufficiently disclose the imminent insolvency of the company and its subsidiaries; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, their positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, Lilium's stock price fell $0.015, or 15.5 percent, to close at $0.083 per share on November 4, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. The company's stock price continued to fall in the subsequent trading day, falling $0.031, or 36.97 percent, to close at $0.052 per share on November 5, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated investors have sustained significant damages. Lilium N.V. is a start-up aviation company doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Century City, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 LUTHER AUTOMOTIVE: Prosser TCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Christopher Prosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Luther Automotive Group doing business as: Landers Auto Group, Case No. 24JE-CC00957 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Nov. 14, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01527-JMB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Luther Automotive Group -- https://www.lutherauto.com/ -- sells new and used vehicles in the Upper Midwest and provides comprehensive and long-term auto services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin V. Butler, II, Esq. BUTLER LAW GROUP LLC 1650 Des Peres Road, Suite 220 Des Peres, MO 63131 Phone: (314) 504-0001 Email: edbutler@butlerlawstl.com The Defendant is represented by: Madelaine Newcomb, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St. Louis One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6000 Email: mnewcomb@thompsoncoburn.com MARK CUBAN: Karnas Seeks More Time to File Supplemental Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominik Karnas, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Mark Cuban, Dallas Basketball Limited, d/b/a Dallas Mavericks, Robert Gronkowski, Victor Oladipo, and Landon Cassill, Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) extending the date for Plaintiffs' supplemental reply on the motion for class certification from Nov. 15, 2024 to Dec. 17, 2024; and (2) allowing Plaintiffs to depose Defendants' class certification expert, Harris Label, before their response date. The Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' request to extend the November 15th deadline to December 17th, but oppose Plaintiffs' request to depose Mr. Label in advance of their deadline to file their supplement to their reply. On Oct. 16, 2024, this Court granted Defendants' request to supplement their opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification on the basis of newly obtained data from the bankrupt Voyager estate. At the October 16, 2024 hearing, Plaintiffs understood that Defendants would be able to provide Plaintiffs access to not only the select documents they planned to attach to their filing, but to the underlying data set from which Plaintiff could conduct its own analysis. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D7PKHT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Joseph M. Kaye, Esq. Barbara C. Lewis, Esq. THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC Continental Plaza 3250 Mary Street, Suite 202 Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 740-1423 E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com joseph@moskowitz-law.com service@moskowitz-law.com barbara@moskowitz-law.com - and - David Boies, Esq. Alexander Boies, Esq. Brooke A. Alexander, Esq. Stephen Neal Zack, Esq. Tyler Ulrich, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com aboies@bsfllp.com balexander@bsfllp.com szack@bsfllp.com tulrich@bsfllp.com - and - Jose M. Ferrer, Esq. Desiree Fernandez, Esq. MARK MIGDAL HAYDEN LLP 8 SW 8th Street, Suite 1999 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 374-0440 E-mail: jose@markmigdal.com desiree@markmigdal.com MAZDA MOTOR: Farina Appeals Final Approval of Guthrie Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCIS J. FARINA, objector, is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Gary Guthrie, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-01055-DOC-DFM, 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 Orange County Superior Court, Yellowstone Co., to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is brought against the Defendant for alleged contract violation. On Oct. 8, 2024, Judge David O. Carter entered final approval order and judgment in this case. On Oct. 24, 2024, Judge Carter entered an order overruling objections to settlement approval. The appellate case is captioned Guthrie, et al. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 24-6919, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due November 19, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on November 29, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on December 30, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on January 28, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on February 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees GARY GUTHRIE, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Defendant-Appellee MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Jahmy S. Graham, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP 19191 S. Vermont Avenue, Suite 900 Torrance, CA 90502 Objector-Appellant FRANCIS J. FARINA is represented by: Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 601 S. Figeroa Street, Suite 2050 Los Angeles, CA 90017 MDL 2873: Paulin Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT A. PAULIN, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05519-RMG (D.S.C., October 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Due to Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with thyroid cancer and hypothyroidism, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career in the military and/or civilian. The Paulin case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com baylstock@awkolaw.com jwitkin@awkolaw.com MDL 2992: Bid to Seal Exhibits Partly Granted in Unemployment Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to seal. The Court grants Defendant's motion to seal Exhibit 60 as unopposed and denies Defendant's motion to seal Exhibits 62, 76 and 115 as unopposed. The Court grants Defendant's motion to file under seal Exhibits 24-51, 54-59, 64-68, 74-75, 77-102, 104-11, 113-14, 116-30, 132-45, 147-48, 150, 152, 153-56. The Court denies BANA's motion to file under seal Exhibits 45, 59, 69 and 146. The Court also grants Defendant's motion to file under seal Exhibits 14-16, and 107 of the corrected documents. After review of these documents, the Court finds that Exhibits 45 and 69 do not contain confidential or sensitive business information that would lead to risk of fraud and should not be sealed and DENIES BANA's motion to file under seal Exhibits 45 and 69. Because communications about the use of the EMV chip technology and freezing and blocking of accounts could be misused by fraudsters to perpetuate future fraud and to avoid detection, the Court GRANTS BANA's motion to file under seal Exhibits 24-26, 31, 69 and 108. This MDL arises from numerous class and individual actions brought against BANA over its administration of the electronic benefits payment system for California’s Employment Development Department ("EDD") during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiffs allege that BANA used a highly flawed Claim Fraud Filter ("CFF") to automatically deny error claims by EDD debit cardholders, or to freeze or block EDD prepaid accounts without adequate investigation. The Plaintiffs, like other millions of Californians, lost their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic and were found eligible by EDD for unemployment and other public benefits. The Defendant is A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mvssxM at no extra charge.[CC] MEDIASTAR LIMITED: Court Extends Deadline on Discovery to Dec. 20 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hossain et al., v. Mediastar Limited et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01201-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting Plaintiffs' request for extension of deadlines. The Court adjourns the deadline for Plaintiffs to complete discovery in service of their class certification motion and motion for default judgment from Nov. 29, 2024, to on before Dec. 20, 2024. The Plaintiffs are further ordered to serve a copy of this endorsement upon Defendants via any previously used means of service. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 36. Mediastar is a dynamic and innovative media company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pC2sQ6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: 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: vzhou@bursor.com MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Conditional Status of Collective Sought ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAQONDA HUMPHRIES, PO SHAN LEUNG, and CHRISTA TRABUCCO, Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. MEDMINDER SYSTEMS, INC. and TROY L. HILSENROTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-10559-IT (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting step-one notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, specifically 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an order: 1. Conditionally certifying the following collective so that putative opt-in plaintiffs may receive notice of the lawsuit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b): "All current and former hourly employees of Medminder employed to process prescriptions throughout the country who were not paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in at least one workweek between March 6, 2021 and the present.; 2. Directing Defendants to, within 30 days, produce the names, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers for all potential class members; 3. Approving the issuance of the Notice and Consent To Join Form attached as Exhibit 1; 4. Allowing individuals 90 days from the date of mailing of the Notice to opt-in to the collective action and authorizing a reminder notice to be sent 45 days prior to the close of the opt-in period; and 5. Granting and other relief the Court deems just. MedMinder is a provider of automatic pill dispensers that remind users to take their medication through flashes, beeps, text messages and phone calls. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IrGxP9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew D. Patton, Esq. Raven Moeslinger, Esq. Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C. One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 338-9400 E-mail: mdp@mass-legal.com MEDSTAR HEALTH: Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIDDICK, et al., v. MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01335-BAH (D. Md.), the Hon. Judge Brendan Hurson enter an order: -- granting the motion for appointment of interim co-lead class counsel, and -- denying the motion for appointment of interim co-lead class counsel, filed by the Plaintiff Rios. Because Barnow, Ostrow, Perry, and Rathod represent the majority of the named Plaintiffs and Ostrow filed the first complaint, the Court concludes that Barnow, Ostrow, Perry, and Rathod are best able to represent the interests of the putative class. Accordingly, Barnow, Ostrow, Perry; and Rathod are appointed to serve as interim co-lead class counsel. On May l 2024, Jeff Ostrow (with co-counsel) filed the first lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff Gwendolyn Riddick against MedStar relating to the Data Breach. On May 22, 2024, Plaintiffs Riddick, Richter, Goldsmith, Sanders, and Rios filed a motion to consolidate the five related actions that were pending before the Court and requested that the Court set a briefing schedule for the filing of interim leadership applications to represent the putative class. MedStar Health offers personalized care and services. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 7, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Es4BsL at no extra charge.[CC] MERRICK GARLAND: Settlement in Segar Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HENRY W. SEGAR, et al., v. MERRICK GARLAND and ANNE MILGRAM, Case No. 1:77-cv-00081-EGS (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Emmet Sullivan entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for (1) provisional class certification, (2) preliminary approval of settlement, and (3) preliminary approval of notice to the provisional class. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Court provisionally certifies a damages class of all current and former Black DEA agents who applied for one or more GS-14 or -15 level positions, made the Best Qualified List for at least one such position at any time between Jan. 21, 1993, and May 2, 2022, and were not selected for one or more of those positions. Lamont Johnson, Carlton Starling, Richard Hall, Jr., Sandra Smith, Ted Golden, Briane Grey, Marissa Lee, Robert Smith, and La Verne Matthews shall serve as representatives for the damages class. Steven Cherry and Danial Volchok of the law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP shall serve as class counsel. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pnqp0u at no extra charge.[CC] METAGENOMI INC: Continues to Defend Vreeland Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metagenomi 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 Vreeland class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 26, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and certain of its current and former directors, captioned Vreeland v. Metagenomi Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-06765 (the "Securities Action"). The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants and control person violations of Section 15 against the individuals. The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information concerning the Company's collaboration with Moderna in the Company's registration statement and final prospectus materials filed in January 2024 and February 2024. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages as well as costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert fees. The Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation. Founded in 2016, Metagenomi is a genetics medicine company headquartered in Emeryville, CA. Following its initial public offering, Metagenomi's stock traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol "MGX". [BN] MIDCOUNTRY BANK: Fiecke-Stifter Appeals Case Dismissal to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANDRA K. FIECKE-STIFTER, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Sandra K. Fiecke-Stifter, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MidCountry Bank, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22-cv-03056-ECT-DTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff Sandra K. Fiecke-Stifter alleges that the Defendants unlawfully foreclosed on a home that had been owned by Sandra's late mother, Doris M. Fasching. Defendant MidCountry Bank was the lender, note holder, and mortgagee. Defendant Taft Stettinius & Hollister represented MidCountry Bank in the foreclosure. Sandra asserts claims against the bank for breach of contract and under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). She asserts a claim against the law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). On Mar. 20, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 3, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Sept. 11, 2023, Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted to the extent it seeks entry of judgment on the pleadings against the claims asserted in Count I (breach of contract against MidCountry Bank) and Count II (violations of TILA against MidCountry Bank) of the amended complaint. Counts I and II were dismissed without prejudice. The Motion was denied to the extent it seeks entry of judgment on the pleadings against the claim asserted in Count III (violations of FDCPA against Taft) of the amended complaint. On Jan. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter/amend/supplement pleadings, which Judge David T. Schultz granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 27, 2024. On Apr. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On Apr. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a corrected second amended complaint. On May 2, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint, which Judge Eric C. Tostrud granted on Oct. 11, 2024. The corrected second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Sandra K. Fiecke-Stifter, et al. v. MidCountry Bank, et al., Case No. 24-3312, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 14, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDRA K. FIECKE-STIFTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Carl E. Christensen, Esq. Christopher Wilcox, Esq. CHRISTENSEN SAMPSEL PLLC 305 North Fifth Avenue, Suite 375 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 473-1200 Email: carl@christensensampsel.com chris@christensensampsel.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com Defendants-Appellees MIDCOUNTRY BANK, et al. are represented by: Jason R. Asmus, Esq. Justin P. Weinberg, Esq. Schaan Barth, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 977-8400 Facsimile: (612) 977-8650 Email: jasmus@taftlaw.com jweinberg@taftlaw.com sbarth@taftlaw.com MIDLAND NATIONAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 5, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zimmerman v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:23-cv-00345 (S.D. Iowa, Filed Sept. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger entered an order granting unresisted motion to extend the deadline to complete non-expert discovery. -- Non-expert discovery shall be completed by: Dec. 19, 2024 -- The Plaintiff's motion for class Feb. 5, 2025 certification due by: -- The Defendant's Resistance to Motion May 7, 2025 for Class Certification due by: -- Plaintiff's Reply is Support of Motion July 15, 2025 for Class Certification due by: The nature of suit states Contract – Insurance. Midland offers life insurance & annuity products.[CC] MR. COOPER GROUP: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach Incident ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 July 15, 2024, plaintiffs Jose Ignacio Garrigo, Izabela Debowcsyk, Joshua Watson, Brett Padalecki, Chris Leptiak, Denver Dale, Emily Burke, Mary Crawford, Kay Pollard, Jonathan Josi, Jeff Price, Mychael Marrone, Katy Ross, Lynette Williams, Karen Lynn Williams, Gary Allen, Larry Siegal, Rohit Burani, Elizabeth Curry, Justin Snider, Linda Hansen, and Deira Robertson filed a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of themselves and an alleged putative nationwide class of all individuals residing in the United States whose personal data was accessed and/or acquired as a result of said data breach that was announced by Mr. Cooper in or around November 2023, as well as 15 state subclasses. Plaintiffs assert (1) Breach of Express Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Negligence; (4) Negligence Per Se; (5) Unjust Enrichment; (6) Invasion of Privacy; (7) Breach of Confidence; as well as a claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, and 19 state law claims. The consolidated class action complaint seeks damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement and restitution, and an award of costs, attorney fees and expenses, among other relief. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas set September 13, 2024 as the last day for defendants to move to dismiss said complaint and on September 13, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss. 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. NETFLIX INC: Faces Denton Suit Over Poor Streaming Quality ---------------------------------------------------------- Drew Lerner, writing for Awful Announcing, reports that there are frivolous lawsuits, and then there's this. Per court documents obtained by TMZ Sports on Tuesday, November 19, an individual named Ronald "Blue" Denton has filed a class-action lawsuit in the state of Florida claiming Netflix breached its contract by failing to provide a watchable stream of the Mike Tyson vs. Jake Paul fight on Friday evening, November 15. As has been widely documented, the fight suffered from extensive buffering and accessibility issues. The lawsuit claims users "were faced with legendary problems, including: no access, streaming glitches, and buffering issues." Denton is asking for unspecified damages in his lawsuit. "This unprecedented scale created many technical challenges, which the launch team tackled brilliantly by prioritizing stability of the stream for the majority of viewers," Netflix CTO Elizabeth Stone said in a statement following the bout. "I'm sure many of you have seen the chatter in the press and on social media about the quality issues. We don't want to dismiss the poor experience of some members, and know we have room for improvement, but still consider this event a huge success." Netflix claims that the fight averaged 60 million viewers worldwide, though that figure was not measured by a third-party firm like Nielsen and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. The streamer also claims that 108 million people watched at least one minute of the fight. With a pair of NFL Christmas Day games and its media rights deal with WWE Raw on the horizon, Netflix will have to get its ducks in a row, or face more scrutiny. However, it's unlikely that this lawsuit is more than a vanity project for Mr. Denton. We'll see if this thing has any staying power. [GN] NEW CHEUNG'S: Underpays Meat Shop Employees, Martinez Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- SALOMON DURAN MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW CHEUNG'S MEAT WHOLESALE INC., and SU HUA ZHANG and IGOR ZHANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-07966 (E.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an organizer, stocker, loader, and food deliverer at 55-57 Montrose Ave., Brooklyn, New York from in or around May 2019 until in or around October 2024. New Cheung's Meat Wholesale Inc. is a wholesaler located in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 NEXT BRIDGE: Continues to Defend Targgart Class Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Next Bridge Hydrocarbons 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 Targgart securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On March 15, 2024, a securities class action captioned Targgart v. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-1927, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action is brought on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities that acquired the Company's shares in connection with the Company's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc., in December 2022. The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, alleging that the Form S-1 that the Company filed with the SEC on July 14, 2022, which became effective on November 18, 2022, contained untrue statements or omissions. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified statutory and compensatory damages. On August 12, 2024, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas. On September 9, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that added a Section 12(a)(2) claim against the Company. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, and that motion is being briefed. Next Bridge Hydrocarbons -- https://www.nextbridgehydrocarbons.com/ -- is an energy company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, exploitation and/or development of oil and natural gas properties.[BN] NJK MANAGEMENT: Faces Ball Suit Over Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- DAWN BALL and MELISSA DUGGINS, individuals, on behalf of the State of California in their representative capacity as private attorneys general, Plaintiffs v. NJK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV03351 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., October 3, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to recover California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act civil penalties on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all current and former aggrieved employees that worked for the Defendants. The complaint asserts that Defendants' systematic pattern of wage and hour and IWC Wage Order violations toward Plaintiffs and other aggrieved employees in California include, inter alia: a. failure to provide compliant meal and rest periods; b. failure to allow employees to take duty-free meal and rest periods; c. failure to pay all minimum, sick pay, regular and overtime wages; d. failure to correctly calculate the regular rate of pay; e. failure to pay within seven days of the close of payroll; f. failure to pay for all hours worked; g. failure to maintain true and accurate records; h. failure to reimburse for required business expenses; i. failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and j. failure to timely pay wages due during, and upon termination of employment. Plaintiffs Ball and Duggins were employed by the Defendants in California as non-exempt employees, paid on an hourly basis. NJK Management Corporation is a franchisee of fast-food restaurants, including McDonald's.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq. Sydney Castillo Johnson, Esq. Perssia Razma, Esq. JCL LAW FIRM, APC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 599-8292 E-mail: jlapuyade@jcl-lawfirm.com scastillo@jcl-lawfirm.com prazma@jcl-lawfirm.com - and - Shani O. Zakay, Esq. ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC 5440 Morehouse Drive, Suite 3600 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 255-9047 E-mail: shani@zakaylaw.com NU RIDE INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NU Ride 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 Northern District of Ohio. Six related putative securities class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors and former DiamondPeak directors between March 18, 2021 and May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Palumbo v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Zuod v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Brury v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; Romano v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.; and FNY Managed Accounts LLC v. Lordstown Motors Corp., et al.). The matters have been consolidated and the Court appointed George Troicky as lead plaintiff and Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel (the "Ohio Securities Class Action"). On March 10, 2021, lead plaintiff and several additional named plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint, asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b), Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and individual defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating to vehicle pre-orders and production timeline. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which is fully briefed as of March 3, 2023. The Company filed a suggestion of bankruptcy on June 28, 2023, and filed an amended suggestion of bankruptcy on July 11, 2023, which notified the court of the filing of the Chapter 11 Cases and resulting automatic stay. On August 28, 2023, the court denied the pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice, given the notice of the automatic stay, subject to potential re-filing by the Defendants following the lifting of the stay. Nu Ride Inc. f/k/a Lordstown Motors Corp. is an electric vehicle OEM developing innovative light duty commercial fleet vehicles, with the Endurance all electric pickup truck as its first vehicle. It has engineering, research and development facilities in Farmington Hills, Mich. and Irvine, Calif. OKLAHOMA SPINE: Abdelraouf Sues Over Failure to Secure PII/PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- Ahmed Abdelraouf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OKLAHOMA SPINE HOSPITAL, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01182-PRW (E.D. Okla., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information, including personally identifiable health information, ("PII/PHI") of Plaintiff and the Class members, including, without limitation: names, date of birth, financial account number, medial information, health insurance information, payment card information, driver's license information and Social Security numbers. In the course of its medical provider operations, Defendant is entrusted with an extensive amount of Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI, Defendant assumed non-delegable legal and equitable duties to Plaintiff and the Class members. On July 1, 2024, a third party gained entry to Defendant's network, and accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI (the "Data Breach Incident"). The full extent of the types of sensitive personal information, the scope of the breach, and the root cause of the Data Breach Incident is all within the exclusive control of Defendant and its agents, counsel, and forensic security vendors at this phase of litigation. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until on or about November 5, 2024, depriving Plaintiff and the Class Members of months to protect themselves from the fallout of the Incident. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent acts and omissions and the failure to protect Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII/PHI. The Plaintiff and Class Members continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and the Class members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure their PII/PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to prevent an unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and procedures regarding the encryption of data in the possession of its vendor. As a result, the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised through access to and exfiltration by an unknown and unauthorized third party, says the complaint. The Plaintiff relied on Defendant to keep their PII/PHI confidential and securely maintained. The Defendant is a domestic limited liability company with its headquarters located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. Zane Hedaya, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ORTHOPEDICSNY LLP: Wagoner Files Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against OrthopedicsNY, LLP. The case is styled as Louanne Wagoner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. OrthopedicsNY, LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-01392-LEK-ML (E.D. Okla., Nov. 14, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. OrthoNY -- https://www.orthony.com/ -- has its focus on assessing, managing, and helping patients recover from orthopedic issues, sports injuries, and work-related injuries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Fax: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com P&O CRUISES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Predatory Behavior ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey Wilhelm, writing for Asia Gaming Brief, reports that P&O Cruises Australia is possibly facing a class action lawsuit for predatory behavior by encouraging guests to gamble regardless of knowing their financial ability to repay possible debts. The claim was sparked by the death of a man who jumped (or fell) off P&O's Pacific Adventure cruise ship in May of this year on the vessel's approach to Sydney. According to the law firm investigating the possible lawsuit, the passenger reportedly lost thousands of dollars over two evenings at the ship's casino. The law firm in question, Carter Capner Law, has accused the cruise ship operator of incentivizing guests to gamble by offering credit and plying them with free alcohol and other incentives such as free cruises. The law firm's director Peter Carter has reportedly been 'inundated' with complaints from other former cruise passengers, including claims that self-exclusion was not optional and that passengers were questioned and held onboard by staff when unable to settle their gambling debts. In statements to ABC Radio Sydney, Carter noted that "The cruise lines think that once they're in international waters everything goes". "The main protagonist, according to the numbers who've already expressed their interest to us, is Carnival and their brands P&O and other Carnival cruises. Royal Caribbean featured to some extent -- they're the only two that are featuring at the moment and they're the ones that [have] operated out of Australia over the last six years," Carter told the broadcaster. A P&O Cruises Australia spokesperson indicated that the company had "Responsible Conduct of Gaming Policies in place on all P&O ships and take those policies seriously". P&O Cruises Australia is set to re-brand into its parent company Carnival Corporation under the Carnival Cruise Line in March of next year. [GN] PACS GROUP: Manchin Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER MANCHIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACS GROUP, INC., JASON MURRAY, DERICK APT, MARK HANCOCK, JACQUELINE MILLARD, TAYLOR LEAVITT, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, STEPHENS INC., KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., and REGIONS SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08636 (S.D.N.Y., November 13, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired PACS Group: (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's April 11, 2024 initial public offering; and/or (b) securities between April 11, 2024 and November 5, 2024 inclusive, pursuing claims against under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On April 12, 2024, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company engaged in a scheme to submit false Medicare claims which "drove more than 100% of PACS' operating and net income from 2020-2023"; (2) that the Company engaged in a scheme to "bill thousands of unnecessary respiratory and sensory integration therapies to Medicare"; (3) that the Company engaged in a scheme to falsify documentation related to licensure and staffing; 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, says the suit. On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.45 or 38.76%, to close at $18.09 per share on November 6, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. PACS Group, through its subsidiaries, operates senior care facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. (GL-0477) Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: glinkh@glancylaw.com rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 PAISLEY CRAFTS: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAISLEY CRAFTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08704 (S.D.N.Y., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://tulipcolor.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Paisley Crafts, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PELICIA HALL: Alexander Class Action Dismissed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALEXANDER, et al. V. PELICIA E. HALL, et al. Case No. 4:20-cv-00021-SA-JMV (N.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Sharion Aycock entered an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice so that the Plaintiffs may initiate separate actions. The Court finds it appropriate for the claims of each Plaintiff to be litigated in a separate action. However, the Court will hold its dismissal in abeyance for a period of 21 days -- or until Dec. 4, 2024 -- to provide the Plaintiffs an opportunity to initiate those separate actions. The Court will enter a separate Order dismissing this case on December 5, 2024. On Oct. 23, 2024, the Defendants filed a Motion to Sever. They argue that "the logical conclusion stemming from this Court's Order denying class certification is that Plaintiffs' claims should be severed into 14 separate actions, including for purposes of completing remaining discovery and for filing dispositive motions." The Plaintiffs have not responded to the Motion and have advised the Court via email that they do not oppose the Defendants’ request. In initiating separate lawsuits, the Plaintiffs should tailor their respective Complaints to the facts pertaining to each respective Plaintiff. In so doing, the Plaintiffs will not be permitted to add any new claims; rather, they should assert only the claims that were previously asserted prior to the expiration of their deadline to amend in this case. Once the new lawsuits are filed, the Magistrate Judge assigned to each respective case will conduct a case management conference to address the parameters of any remaining discovery and set all other deadlines associated with the case. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BKv9Ab at no extra charge.[CC] PEOPLEREADY INC: Goodwin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Raymond Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. PEOPLEREADY, INC, Case No. 2024CH09438 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11789. The Plaintiff and the class members allege PeopleReady violated the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA"), and seek damages for those violations. By his Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendant violated the GIPA by requiring prospective employees to undergo a physical examination as part of its hiring process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michale L. Fradin, Esq. FRADIN LAW 8401 Crawford Ave, Ste 104 Skokie, Il 60076 Email: mike@fradinlaw.com - and - James L. Simon, Esq. SIMON LAW CO. 11 1/2 N Franklin Street Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022 Email: james@simonsayspay.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul W. Daugherty, Esq. Patrick G. Meredith, Esq. KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP 30 North LaSalle St., Ste. 1700 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 759-1400 Fax: (312) 759-0402 Email: pdaugherity@kaufmandolowich.com patrick.meredith@kaufmandolowich.com PLAZA HOME: Underpays Account Executives, Walling Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESLIE WALLING; CHANDRA LEE HALUCZAK; TRAVIS SMITH; individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01787-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal., October 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the California Business & Professions Code, and the Illinois Wage Laws. The claims are premised on Plaza's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated employees all earned minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal-and-rest periods, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to pay all earned wages due upon separation, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs were full-time non-exempt employees of Plaza who worked as Account Executives. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc. is a wholesale and correspondent mortgage lender which operates in all 50 states of the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. Leah M. Beligan, Esq. BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP 19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 333 Newport Beach, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 224-3881 E-mail: jbeligan@beliganlawgroup.com lbeligan@beliganlawgroup.com - and - Tyler D. Kring, Esq. Jeffrey T. Green, Esq. KRING & CHUN0047, LLP 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (949) 261-7700 Facsimile: (949) 261-8800 E-mail: tkring@kringandchung.com jgreen@kringandchung.com PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNY MADRID, as next of friend for D.L., a minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE SERVICES and THOMPSON COBURN, LLP, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01542 (E.D. Mo., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within Thompson Coburn's network systems following a data breach between May 28, 2024, and May 29, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Presbyterian Healthcare Services is a provider of medical services in New Mexico. Thompson Coburn LLP is a law firm with its principal place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri. [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 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com jaw@federmanlaw.com RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Grady Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA GRADY, et al, v. RCM TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 5:22-cv-00842-JLS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order granting motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The Court conditionally granted preliminary approval of the parties' proposed class action settlement but ordered amendment to the Settlement Agreement and Class Notice. The Court preliminarily approves the parties' settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the amended notice form, grants class certification for the Settlement Class as defined in the Settlement Agreement and approves Barbara Grady as Class Representative and Joshua Konecky as Class Counsel to act on behalf of the Settlement Class. The Court approves, as to form and content, the amended form of Class Notice. The Court approves the designation of JND Legal Administration to serve as the Settlement Administrator for the settlement. The Parties may further modify the Settlement Agreement prior to the Final Approval Hearing so long as such modifications do not materially change the terms of the settlement provided therein. The Court may approve the Settlement Agreement with such modifications as may be agreed to by the Parties, if appropriate, without further notice to Settlement Class Members. Counsel for the Parties are hereby authorized to utilize all reasonable procedures in connection with the administration of the settlement which are not materially inconsistent with either this Order or the terms of the Settlement Agreement. RCM is a business and technology solutions provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cupwi6 at no extra charge.[CC] RELIANCE HEALTH: Dress Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN DRESS, individually and for others similarly situated v. RELIANCE HEALTH CARE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00973-JM (E.D. Ark., November 12, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other damages from the Defendant. Plaintiff Dress worked for Reliance as a Licensed Practical Nurse in Springdale, AR from approximately June 2022 until May 2023. She regularly worked more than 40 hours in a week. However, Reliance did not pay for all the hours they worked. Instead, Reliance automatically deducted 30 minutes a day from these employees' work time for so-called meal breaks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that Reliance's auto-deduction policy violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by depriving Dress and the putative class members of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked. Headquartered in Reliance, AR, Reliance Health Care, Inc. owns and operates short-term rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities throughout Arkansas and Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl A. Fitz, Esq. FITZ LAW PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 766-4000 E-mail: carl@fi.tz.legal - and - Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 7 5254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 Facsimile: (469) 319-0317 E-mail: marbuckle@wageandhourlirm.com rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com REPUBLIC MORTGAGE: Allison Sues Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt B. Allison, as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Affiliated Companies Profit Sharing Plan v. REPUBLIC MORTGAGE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00950 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), against Defendant ("RMIC"), the administrator of the Plan. Defendant failed to prudently monitor the Plan's investment in an insurance company's guaranteed interest account ("GIA"), certified false and misleading statements concerning the risk of loss to Plan participants invested in the GIA, and failed to take action to avoid a $1.3 million loss of principal in the GIA. Under ERISA, the plan fiduciary responsible for selecting investments has an ongoing duty to monitor the investments to ensure that they remain prudent, and to remove imprudent ones. Between 2012 and 2022, ORI guided Defendant through a calculated "run off" of the mortgage insurance business. The run-off period started after Defendant terminated half of its employees and stopped writing new policies because it failed North Carolina's solvency requirements in 2011. Defendant has not written any new policies since 2011. Had Defendant performed its duty prudently, it would have been clear to Defendant during 2021 that the risk of a negative market value adjustment to participants' GIA balances after the conclusion of the run-off period was unreasonably high. Between March and September of 2021, members of the Federal Reserve Bank ("FRB") revised their interest rate projections for 2023 from a median of 0.10% to 1.00%. By December 2021, the median 2023 projection was up to 1.6%, and the 2024 median projection was 2.1%, while the current rate remained 0.10%. The consensus among FRB members that interest rate hikes would be needed during the period that ORI intended to sell or otherwise dispose of Defendant's business created a substantial risk that participants' GIA balances would suffer a loss of principal at that time. In light of these risks and the critical role that the GIA played in the Plan as the sole capital preservation option holding 44% of the Plan's total assets, a prudent fiduciary of the Plan would have had terminated the Plan's GIA contract by notice in 2021 and avoided the risk of loss of principal associated with anticipated FRB interest rate hikes. The Defendant, however, did not terminate the Plan's GIA contract. Defendant held the GIA as the only capital preservation option in the Plan until the bitter end, when the GIA was liquidated in late 2023 after Defendant froze contributions in connection with ORI's long anticipated sale of Defendant to a third-party. This action caused a 9% loss of principal to all GIA balances in the Plan, which was passed on to Plan participant accounts in January 2024. The Defendant's failure to appropriately acknowledge and take action in response to the high risk of loss to participants' GIA balances can only be explained by its lack of prudence and care in discharging its fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants. Terminating the GIA by notice in 2021 due to the probability that the Plan would be terminated in 2023 during a rising interest rate environment would not have required Defendant to commit any kind of insider trading. Defendant would merely be trading in fixed income securities of unaffiliated entities. Under these circumstances, acting to secure Plan participants' retirement accounts based upon information regarding the company's publicized exit plan from the mortgage insurance business was not only legal, but it was also something Defendant should have been doing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant who participated in the Plan. The Defendant is a mortgage insurance company and was the sponsor and administrator of the Plan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 559-4908 Facsimile: (813) 222-4795 Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com medelman@forthepeople.com - and - Charlie C. Gokey, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-8349 Facsimile: (612) 677-3050 Email: cgokey@engstromlee.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Jan. 6, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIETOSO, INC., v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00397-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. 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=pWD9Ny at no extra charge.[CC] REWORLD HOLDING: Bid to Strike Expert Declarations Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RABBI AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY and MARIA ALEJANDRA DURAN, v. REWORLD HOLDING CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge David Leibowitz entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to strike or exclude the Plaintiffs' expert declarations. 1. Dr. McAuley's declaration is partially excluded. Dr. McAuley may testify as to the first part of his first opinion based on his findings from his weather analysis, but he may not testify as to the second part of his first opinion as to the specified Contamination Area as explained in this Order. Dr. McAuley's second, third, fourth, and fifth opinions are entirely excluded. 2. Dr. Hoffman's declaration is partially excluded. Dr. Hoffman may offer his second opinion, but Dr. Hoffman's first and third opinions are excluded. 3. Mr. Bowcock's second declaration is stricken. Mr. Bowcock's first declaration is excluded. 4. Mr. Safdie's second declaration is excluded. Given this Court's rulings on Defendants' motion to strike or exclude Plaintiffs' expert declarations, Plaintiffs' motion to certify class and Plaintiffs' motion to certify class brief on motion are denied without prejudice. The parties shall meet and confer and propose a briefing schedule to the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification no later than Dec. 13, 2024 The Court accordingly finds Dr. McAuley's opinion regarding the air quality and soil impacts to be unreliable and therefore inadmissible under Rule 702. Thus, the Court excludes part of Dr. McAuley's first opinion and entirely excludes his second, third, fourth, and fifth opinions because they are unreliable. The Court also finds that Dr. Hoffman's opinion is helpful to the trier of fact because it will allow the jury to understand what kinds of toxic substances may have been released into the air from the fire. Thus, the Court will not exclude Dr. Hoffman’s second proffered expert opinion. On March 3, 2023, Plaintiffs individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated in Miami-Dade County brought this action against Covanta Holding Corporation, Covanta Dade Renewable Energy, LLC, EQT Infrastructure Corporation, and EQT Infrastructure V. Reworld is a private energy-from-waste and industrial waste management services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3AAB6Q at no extra charge.[CC] RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Judge Recommends Class Cert. Denial ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY MACK MORRIS, v. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00650-MHT-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Charles Coody recommends that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. 2. This case be referred to the undersigned for further proceedings. Further, it is ordered that by Nov. 27, 2024, the parties may file objections to this Recommendation. The parties must specifically identify the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made. A copy of the Court's recommendation dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y5rexq at no extra charge.[CC] RUST-OLEUM: Andreozzi Sues Over False Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------- Jamiene Andreozzi, Christopher Lemieux, Dylan Hyman, Alex Duleba, Daniel Ryan, and Ryan Delaval, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RUST-OLEUM CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-11710 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought concerning deceptive representations and omissions made by Rust-Oleum regarding its line of 2x Coverage Paint Products, as well as false advertisements, including the products' name, and on the products' label, packaging, website, and the product's technical data sheet which are likely to deceive the reasonable consumer. Among Rust-Oleum's spray paint products, it manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells several spray paint products claiming that they provide "2x" or two times the coverage of other Rust-Oleum general paint products. The "2x" spray paint products sold by Rust-Oleum include: Painter's Touch 2X Ultra Cover, Rust-Oleum Acrylic Enamel 2X Coverage, and American Accents 2X Ultra Cover (collectively the "Products" or "2x Paint Products"). While this marketing strategy has no doubt been a success for Rust Oleum, that success has been the result of unlawful and unfair business practices by Rust-Oleum. Rather than providing "twice the coverage" as Rust-Oleum general purpose spray paints, based on Rust-Oleum's own data, the Products perform below their express representations and fail to fulfill Rust-Oleum's affirmative promises. As a result, Plaintiffs and putative Class Members suffered an injury in additional time and cost to paint a surface, as represented by the Products' claims, as well as the amount of price premium paid for the product. Further, Plaintiffs and the Class Members purchased, purchased more of, and/or paid more for, the Products than they would have had they known the truth about the Products. Consequently, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered injury and lost money as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants products. Rust-Oleum manufactures and sells a variety of paints, stains, and coating products for commercial and consumer use, including various types of spray paints.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Cates, Esq. Katie St. John, Esq. THE CATES LAW FIRM, LLC 216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A Swansea, IL 62226 Phone: (618) 277-3644 Facsimile: (618) 277-7882 Email: dcates@cateslaw.com kstjohn@cateslaw.com - and - Christopher D. Jennings, Esq. Tyler B. Ewigleben, Esq. Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AK 72201 Phone: (501) 372-1300 Email: Chris@jenningspllc.com tyler@jenningspllc.com winston@jenningspllc.com - and - Matthew Alison, Esq. INDIAN & ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP, PLLC 233 South Detroit Ave. Suite 200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Phone: (918) 347-6169 Fax: (918) 948-6190 SAFERENT SOLUTIONS: Judge OKs Settlement on AI Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jesse Bedayn, writing for ABC News, reports that Mary Louis' excitement to move into an apartment in Massachusetts in the spring of 2021 turned to dismay when Louis, a Black woman, received an email saying that a "third-party service" had denied her tenancy. That third-party service included an algorithm designed to score rental applicants, which became the subject of a class action lawsuit, with Louis at the helm, alleging that the algorithm discriminated on the basis of race and income. A federal judge approved a settlement in the lawsuit, one of the first of it's kind, on Wednesday, November 20, with the company behind the 36+parts of it's screening products that the lawsuit alleged were discriminatory. The settlement does not include any admissions of fault by the company SafeRent Solutions, which said in a statement that while it "continues to believe the SRS Scores comply with all applicable laws, litigation is time-consuming and expensive." While such lawsuits might be relatively new, the use of algorithms or artificial intelligence programs to screen or score Americans isn't. For years, AI has been furtively helping make consequential decisions for U.S. residents. When a person submits a job application, applies for a home loan or even seeks certain medical care, there's a chance that an AI system or algorithm is scoring or assessing them like it did Louis. Those AI systems, however, are largely unregulated, even though some have been found to discriminate. "Management companies and landlords need to know that they're now on notice, that these systems that they are assuming are reliable and good are going to be challenged," said Todd Kaplan, one of Louis' attorneys. The lawsuit alleged SafeRent's algorithm didn't take into account the benefits of housing vouchers, which they said was an important detail for a renter's ability to pay the monthly bill, and it therefore discriminated against low-income applicants who qualified for the aid. The suit also accused SafeRent's algorithm of relying too much on credit information. They argued that it fails to give a full picture of an applicant's ability to pay rent on time and unfairly dings applicants with housing vouchers who are Black and Hispanic partly because they have lower median credit scores, attributable to historical inequities. Christine Webber, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, said that just because an algorithm or AI is not programmed to discriminate, the data an algorithm uses or weights could have "the same effect as if you told it to discriminate intentionally." When Louis' application was denied, she tried appealing the decision, sending two landlords' references to show she'd paid rent early or on time for 16 years, even if she didn't have a strong credit history. Louis, who had a housing voucher, was scrambling, having already given notice to her previous landlord that she was moving out, and she was charged with taking care of her granddaughter. The response from the management company, which used SafeRent's screening service, read, "We do not accept appeals and cannot override the outcome of the Tenant Screening." Louis felt defeated; the algorithm didn't know her, she said. "Everything is based on numbers. You don't get the individual empathy from them," said Louis. "There is no beating the system. The system is always going to beat us." While state lawmakers have proposed aggressive regulations for these types of AI systems, the proposals have largely failed to get enough support. That means lawsuits like Louis' are starting to lay the groundwork for AI accountability. SafeRent's defense attorneys argued in a motion to dismiss that the company shouldn't be held liable for discrimination because SafeRent wasn't making the final decision on whether to accept or deny a tenant. The service would screen applicants, score them and submit a report, but leave it to landlords or management companies to accept or deny a tenant. Louis' attorneys, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, which submitted a statement of interest in the case, argued that SafeRent's algorithm could be held accountable because it still plays a role in access to housing. The judge denied SafeRent's motion to dismiss on those counts. The settlement stipulates that SafeRent can't include its score feature on its tenant screening reports in certain cases, including if the applicant is using a housing voucher. It also requires that if SafeRent develops another screening score it plans to use, it must be validated by a third-party that the plaintiffs agree to. Louis' son found an affordable apartment for her on Facebook Marketplace that she has since moved into, though it was $200 more expensive and in a less desirable area. "I'm not optimistic that I'm going to catch a break, but I have to keep on keeping, that's it," said Louis. "I have too many people who rely on me." [GN] SAMARIS REALTY: Property Inaccessible to Disabled, Longhini Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS LONGHINI, Plaintiff v. SAMARIS REALTY LLC and EDEN'S SONS SUPERMARKET CORP D/B/A EDEN'S SONS SUPERMARKET, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-24475 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant/landlord, SAMARIS REALTY LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property, to include its common areas such as the general parking lot and parking spots specific to the market and other businesses operating within the commercial property and all other common areas open to the public located within the property. The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property and market regularly since at least 2016, to include recent visits within the commercial property on September 13, 2024 and on November 9, 2024, and encountered multiple violations of the ADA due to architectural barriers that directly affected his ability to use and enjoy the commercial property. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and market business within the commercial property, alleges the suit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com SEASTAR MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Wells Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Seastar Medical Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Wells class suit in the United States District Court for the State of Colorado. On July 5, 2024, Forrest A K Wells (the "Plaintiff"), a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the State of Colorado, captioned Wells v. SeaStar Medical Holding Corporation et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-0187 (D. Colorado) (the "Class Action"). The Class Action alleges that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer made or caused to be made material misstatements or omissions regarding the Company's business and operations, allegedly culminating in the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial statements, disclosed in a Form 8-K and filed on March 27, 2024. The Class Action asserts claims pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, including Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a). The Class Action seeks to recover, among other remedies, compensatory damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. Seastar Medical Holding Corp., a medical device company, develops a platform therapy to reduce the consequences of hyperinflammation on vital organs in the United States.[BN] SELECT PORTFOLIO: Payne Sues Over Refusal to Release Liens ---------------------------------------------------------- Nelson C. Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-11768 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought arising out of Defendants' refusal to release liens relating to debts discharged in bankruptcy in violation of bankruptcy court discharge orders and state law. The Defendants have willfully failed to comply with bankruptcy court orders, bankruptcy law, and state law requiring that they release certain liens that secure discharged debts or debts that are or otherwise satisfied by Plaintiff's and Class members' bankruptcy discharge orders. Plaintiff, on behalf himself and others similarly situated, seeks monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief for Defendants' violation of bankruptcy court discharge orders, the Illinois Mortgage Act ("IMA"), and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), says the complaint. The Plaintiff filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 16-bk-14802. SPS is incorporated in and has a principal place of business in Utah.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com - and - Erik A. Martin, Esq. 7140 S. St. Lawrence Avenue, Suite 2 Chicago, IL 60619 Phone: (312) 547-9087 Email: Erikamartin22@live.com SET FORTH: Allen Sues Over Failure to Protect Sensitive Data ------------------------------------------------------------ David Allen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC. and CENTREX SOFTWARE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11781 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendants' failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendants store a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about their current and former consumers. But Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated their insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of their systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to their current and former consumers' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems because 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 short, Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a Notice of Data Breach on November 8, 2024. Th Defendants are businesses that "provide cloud-based customer relationship management (CRM) solutions powered by the Set Forth platform."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 5th Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (646) 357-1732 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com - and - Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr. Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Email: daniel@slfla.com SET FORTH: Carroll Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SET FORTH, INC. The case is styled as Linda Carroll, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11726 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. SET FORTH, INC. has been serving consumers who are exiting debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com SET FORTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Personal Info, Garrett Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANGELA GARRETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11744 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 15, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive personally identifiable information of its clients' customers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach, the suit contends. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of the Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, and Social Security numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately 1,500,000 Class Members, suffered concrete injuries including: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and Plaintiff experiencing fraudulent charges to her Chase credit card, in June 2024, says the suit. The Defendant is a company that provides online account administration services to consumers enrolled in debt relief. programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com SET FORTH: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Hopkins Says --------------------------------------------------------- CORY HOPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11739 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information, stored within Defendant's information network. In May 2024, unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with the Defendant, with the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII. The exposed data includes names, address, and/or Social Security numbers, the suit alleges. The total number of individuals who have had their data exposed due to Defendant's failure to implement appropriate security safeguards is approximately 1,500,000 individuals. The Plaintiff received a letter from the Defendant, dated Nov. 8, 2024, stating that their PII was involved in the Data Breach. The Plaintiff was unaware of the Data Breach until receiving that letter. As a result, the Plaintiff was injured in the form of lost time dealing with the consequences of the Data Breach, which included and continues to include: time spent verifying the legitimacy and impact of the Data Breach; time spent exploring credit monitoring and identity theft insurance options; time spent self-monitoring their accounts with heightened scrutiny and time spent seeking legal counsel regarding their options for remedying and/or mitigating the effects of the Data Breach, the suit asserts. In addition, the Plaintiff allegedly suffered actual injury in the form of damages to and diminution in the value of their PII. The Plaintiff has also increased anxiety for their loss of privacy and anxiety over the impact of cybercriminals accessing, using, and selling their PII. As required in order to obtain services from Defendant, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with highly sensitive personal information, who then possessed and controlled it. Set Forth is an account administrator and processor for consumers in debt relief programs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com - and - Courtney Weiner, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF COURTNEY WEINER PLLC 1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 827-9980 E-mail: cw@courtneyweinerlaw.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Iudiciani Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis Iudiciani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc. d/b/a Century 21 Limitless, Case No. 1:23-cv-00443-MSM-LDA (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for him to file a motion for class certification by three months, from Dec. 20, 2024 to March 20, 2025. In order to avoid prejudicing Plaintiff and depriving him of the ability to effectively brief his motion for class certification, and to avoid rewarding Defendant for its ongoing discovery misconduct, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification by an additional three months to afford the Court an opportunity to address Plaintiff's motion for an order to show cause, for Plaintiff to obtain that necessary outstanding discovery, for Plaintiff to depose Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) representative, and for Plaintiff to provide that necessary discovery to an expert, all of which has been delayed by months due to Defendant’s discovery conduct. The Defendant has effectively filibustered this case, and continues to do so, even to the point of withholding basic requests for confirmation or clarification regarding Plaintiff's attempts to confer on discovery or scheduling issues. The Court's June 20, 2024 text order setting a Dec. 20, 2024 deadline for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class certification is untenable based on Defendant's conduct. Century 21 is a real estate company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SEKIZj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher M. Lefebvre, Esq. THE CONSUMER AND FAMILY LAW CENTER OF CLAUDE F. LEFEBVRE & CHRISTOPHER M. LEFEBVRE, P.C. 2 Dexter Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 Telephone: (401) 728-6060 E-mail: Chris@lefebvrelaw.com - and - Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq. PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC 7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250 Austin, TX 78735 Telephone: (561) 726-8444 E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com SHADE STORE: Filing for Class Cert Bid Amended to March 24, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Ricardo Martinez entered an order granting the Stipulated Motion and rules as follows: 1. Plaintiff Lee Fitzgerald shall file an amended complaint add Ms. Alder as a named plaintiff, to add Ms. Alder's claims to the lawsuit, and to add allegations regarding Ms. Alder's claims. The amended complaint shall be filed by Nov. 21, 2024. 2. The Court enters the following amended schedule for this matter through class certification: Case Event Amended Deadline Close of fact discovery for issues Jan. 8, 2025 related to class certification: Expert reports on class certification Jan. 23, 2025 issues on which party has burden: Rebuttal expert reports on class March 6, 2025 certification issues: Close of expert discovery for issues March 17, 2025 related to class certification: Deadline to file motion for class March 24, 2025 Certification: Opposition to motion for class April 28, 2025 certification and any Daubert motions: Reply to motion for class certification: May 26, 2025 Opposition any Daubert motions: May 26, 2025 Reply to Daubert motions: June 16, 2025 Shade Store is a home decoration products provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O1DZtA at no extra charge.[CC] The Parties are represented by: Maren R. Norton, Esq. James M. Shore, Esq. Jenna M. Poligo, Esq. STOEL RIVES LLP 600 University Street, Suite 3600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 624-0900 Facsimile: (206) 386-7500 E-mail: maren.norton@stoel.com jim.shore@stoel.com jenna.poligo@stoel.com - and - Steven N. Feldman, Esq. Shlomo Fellig, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 E-mail: steve.feldman@lw.com shlomo.fellig@lw.com SHAW INDUSTRIES: Cundiff Sues Over Contaminated Carpet Products --------------------------------------------------------------- James Cundiff, and others similarly situated v. SHAW INDUSTRIES GROUP, INC. and SHAW INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00362 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought seeking to obtain what he already paid for safe carpets and rugs fit for their intended use. While no one would think twice about the safety of their floors, Defendants knowingly coated their carpets and rugs with dangerous carcinogens--the infamous "forever chemicals" known as PFAS (the "PFAS Carpet Products"). The presence of these PFAS Carpet Products contaminate the homes and indoor spaces where they are installed and increase the risk of adverse health events, such as various cancers and reproductive issues, of those who come into contact with the PFAS Carpet Products, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased and used a PFAS Carpet Product for the past 10 years. Shaw is the world's largest carpet manufacturer and designs and manufactures over 4,400 styles of tufted carpet, wood, and resilient flooring for both commercial and residential use.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam G. Russell, Esq. FISHER | RUSSELL PLLC 10265 Kingston Pike, Suite C Knoxville, TN 37922 Phone: (865) 259-7777 - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Laura C. Fellows, Esq. PAUL LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, NO 64106 Phone: 816-984-8100 Fax: 816-984-8101 Email: Rick@PaulLLP.com Laura@PaulLLP.com SIMADOR LLC: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Telephonic Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Figueroa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SIMADOR, LLC, Case No. CACE-24-016453 (Fla. 17th Judicial Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations Of the Caller ID Rules, Fla. Stat. Of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA"). In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that are not capable of receiving telephone calls. As such, Plaintiff, brings this action alleging that Defendant violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message ("Text Message Sales Calls"). Specifically, Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that promoted Charming Charlie ("Battling Blades Text Message Sales Calls") and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is the regular user of a cellular telephone number that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls. The Defendant sells various goods to persons throughout the country through its online store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. Shawn A. Heller, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 974 Howard Ave. Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (202) 709-5744 Fax: (866) 893-0416 Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com shawn@sjlawcollective.com SMARTSHEET INC: Bushansky Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Bushansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMARTSHEET INC., MARK MADER, ALISSA ABDULLAH, GEOFFREY BARKER, MICHAEL GREGOIRE, MATTHEW MCILWAIN, KATIE ROONEY, KHOZEMA SIPCHANDLER, ROWAN TROLLOPE, JAMES WHITE, and MAGDALENA YESIL, Case No. 1:24-cv-08648 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder ("Rule 14a-9"), arising in connection with the solicitation of public stockholders of Smartsheet to vote in favor of a merger transaction ("Merger") pursuant to which Smartsheet will merge into affiliates of Blackstone Inc., Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC, and Platinum Falcon B 2018 RSC Limited, an affiliate of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority ("ADIA"), in exchange for a payment of $56.50 per share in cash ("Merger Consideration") to Smartsheet stockholders. On September 24, 2024, Smartsheet issued a press release announcing the Merger. On November 4, 2024, Defendants authorized the filing of a false and misleading definitive proxy on Schedule 14A ("Proxy") with the SEC, in violation of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, with the aim of soliciting Smartsheet stockholders to vote for the Merger at a special meeting of Smartsheet stockholders to be held on December 9, 2024 ("Stockholder Vote"). The Proxy advises Smartsheet stockholders that "your vote is very important, regardless of the number of shares of our common stock that you own. The Proxy contains materially false statements, and material omissions that render statements therein misleading "half-truths." These materially false and misleading statements and omissions violate the above-referenced Exchange Act provisions and Rule 14a-9. The violations must be cured in advance of the Stockholder Vote to enable Smartsheet stockholders to cast informed votes with respect to the Merger. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any further steps to consummate the Merger and schedule the Stockholder Vote, until such violations are cured. Alternatively, if the Merger is consummated, Plaintiff reserves the right to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff and similarly-situated investors as a result of such violations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a stockholder of Smartsheet common stock. Smartsheet that develops and sells enterprise workplace management and collaboration software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-971-1341 Fax: 212-202-7880 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - Joshua E. Fruchter, Esq. WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP 25 Robert Pitt Drive, Suite 209G Monsey, NY 10952 Phone: (845) 290-6818 Fax: (718) 504-3773 Email: jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com - and - Joshua M. Rubin, Esq. WEISS LAW 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Email: jrubin@weisslawllp.com - and - Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. WEISS LAW 476 Hardendorf Ave. NE Atlanta, GA 30307 Phone: (404) 692-7910 Fax: (212) 682-3010 Email: mrogovin@weisslawllp.com SMTC MANUFACTURING: Seeks Denial of Nguyen Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOMO NGUYEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SMTC MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-07394-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants, on Dec. 19, 2024, will move the Court, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order denying class certification. The Defendants bring this Motion on the grounds that the Plaintiff Momo is not party to any arbitration agreement with the SMTC Defendants. However, a majority of the putative class members the Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action have agreed to resolve their employment disputes with the SMTC Defendants and any alleged joint employers and staffing agencies such as defendants 40 HRS, Inc. and CheckOne, Inc.—including disputes regarding unfair competition, violation of California statutes and violation of California wage and hour laws—through individual arbitration and not on a class action basis. As a result, Plaintiff cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely, typicality, adequacy, predominance, or superiority. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class defined as "all non-exempt employees who work or worked for Defendants in California, during the four years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of trial." The Plaintiff is a former employee of defendants 40 HRS, Inc., a temporary staffing agency, and CheckOne, Inc. SMTC Manufacturing is a sister company to SMTC Corporation. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCdF7e at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92121-2133 Telephone: (858) 677-1400 Facsimile: (858) 677-1401 E-mail: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com joseph.kim@us.dlapiper.com SOUTH CAROLINA: Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Transgender Students ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE, a minor, by his parents and next friends, JIM DOE and JANE DOE, et al., v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06420-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move the Court to enter an order certifying the following class: "All current and future transgender students who seek or will seek to use a single-sex restroom corresponding to their gender identities in a South Carolina public school." As for Rule 23(a), the Plaintiff's proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all individual members would be impracticable, Plaintiff's suit presents questions of law and fact common to proposed class members, Plaintiff's claims are typical of members of the proposed class, and Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of proposed class members. As for Rule 23(b)(2), Defendants—in seeking to enforce and comply with Proviso 1.120—have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, such that class-wide injunctive relief is warranted. South Carolina is a southeastern U.S. state known for its shoreline of subtropical beaches and marshlike sea islands. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JxeZpx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harper T. Segui, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 825 Lowcountry Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: hsegui@milberg.com - and - Joseph J. Wardenski, Esq. WARDENSKI P.C. 134 West 29th Street, Suite 709 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (347) 913-3311 E-mail: joe@wardenskilaw.com - and - Alexandra Z. Brodsky, Esq. Sean Ouellette, Esq. Adele P. Kimmel, Esq. PUBLIC JUSTICE 1620 L Street NW, Suite 630 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 797-8600 E-mail: abrodsky@publicjustice.net souellette@publicjustice.net akimmel@publicjustice.net SOUTH DAKOTA: Irvine's Bid to Amend Class Definition Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE IRVINE, guardian ad litem of Aubrey Archambeau and Joseph Baker, as named plaintiffs on behalf of a class; AUBREY ARCHAMBEAU, on behalf of a class; and JOSEPH BAKER, on behalf of a class, v. JEREMY JOHNSON, Administrator, South Dakota Human Services Center, sued in his official capacity; MATT ALTHOFF, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Social Services, Case No. 4:21-cv-04224-KES (D.S.D.), the Hon. Judge Karen Schreier entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to amend class definition, and to alter or amend the order denying class certification. Thus, because the court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements under Rule 23(a), plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is denied. The Plaintiffs Archambeau and Baker faced criminal charges, were detained, and were awaiting competency restoration treatment after South Dakota circuit courts found them incompetent. After being deemed incompetent, both Archambeau and Baker waited more than four months before receiving competency restoration treatment. The Plaintiffs filed a class action suit to challenge the length of their pretrial detention before they received competency restoration as violative of their due process rights. In their current motion to amend the class definition, the Plaintiffs seek to certify the following amended class: "Mentally ill people who are accused of crimes in South Dakota, have been found incompetent, and incarcerated for more than seven days after being found incompetent before competency restoration begins; and mentally ill people who in the future will be accused of crimes in South Dakota, found incompetent, and incarcerated for more than seven days after being found incompetent before competency restoration begins." South Dakota Department of Human Services (DHS) offers services for people with disabilities. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vBWXwQ at no extra charge.[CC] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Butler Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYZHIMA BUTLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA Collective; (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing Plaintiff's proposed form of Notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims are sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly customer service agents who worked for the Defendant at any time during the past three years (the "FLSA Collective")." (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized Notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant willfully violated the FLSA by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiffs and all similarly situated call center agents to perform unpaid work before and during their scheduled shifts, failing to pay these employees the federally mandated overtime compensation, and failing to properly calculate Plaintiffs' and similarly situated employees' regular rates of pay. The Plaintiff Butler worked for Defendant as a remote hourly Agent from September 2021 through November 2023. Specialized Loan is "a leading international third-party mortgage service provider." A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 11, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YHNOms at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com SPECIALIZED LOAN: Butler Seeks Conditional Status of Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYZHIMA BUTLER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01087-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"): (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA Collective; (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective members by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and importable format within ten (10) days of the entry of the order; (3) Authorizing Plaintiff's proposed form of Notice (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby the Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims are sent (via U.S. Mail, email, and text message) to: "All current and former hourly customer service agents who worked for Defendant at any time during the past three years (the "FLSA Collective")." (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA Collective; and (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this case, measured from the date the Court-authorized Notice is sent, with one reminder email sent 30 days thereafter to anyone who did not respond. The Plaintiff Butler worked for the Defendant as a remote hourly Agent from September 2021 to November 2023, and was paid an hourly wage, most recently at $19.80. Specialized Loan is an international third-party mortgage service provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WW58Vc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Albert J. Asciutto, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com aasciutto@sommerspc.com SPEED UTV: Order Setting Scheduling Conference Entered in Orient ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORIENT EXPRESS CONTAINER CO., LTD. v. SPEED UTV, LLC, IN PERSONAM, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-06612-WLH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order setting scheduling conference: 1. If plaintiff has not already served the operative complaint on all defendants, plaintiff shall do so promptly and shall file proofs of service of the summons and complaint within three (3) days thereafter. 2. "Counsel," as used in this Order, includes parties who have elected to appear without counsel and are representing themselves in this litigation. 3. The Plaintiff's counsel or, if plaintiff is a Pro Se Litigant, Defendant's counsel, shall provide this Order to all known parties who have not yet appeared or who appear after the date of this Order. This and all other applicable orders in this case are available at the bottom of Judge Hsu’s webpage (http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/honorable−wesley−l−hsu). 4. Compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. The scheduling conference will be held pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(b). The parties are reminded of their obligations to (i) make initial disclosures "without awaiting a discovery request" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)) and (ii) confer on a discovery plan at least twenty-one (21) days before the scheduling conference. 5. Lead trial counsel and any unrepresented parties must attend the scheduling conference, unless excused by the Court for good cause prior to the conference. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zU9OWw at no extra charge.[CC] STAKE CENTER: Loonsfoot Seeks to Certify Hourly Utility Locators ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL LOONSFOOT, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03171-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class identical to that certified in Wolfe, albeit for Illinois (instead of Pennsylvania) workers. Specifically, Loonsfoot seeks an Order: -- certifying a class action on behalf of a class (Class) defined as: "All hourly Utility Locators who worked for SCL in Illinois who were subject to SCL's pre-and post-shift work policy, meal break policy, auto allowance policy, and/or per diem pay scheme at any time during the 3 years prior to the filing of this Complaint until final resolution of this action (Class Members)." -- appointing Loonsfoot, as representative for the Class; -- appointing Michael Josephson, Andrew Dunlap, Richard Schreiber, Richard (Rex) Burch, Douglas M. Werman, and Maureen A. Salas, as Class Counsel; -- authorizing Loonsfoot to send the Proposed Notice Class Members (Ex. 2); and -- directing SCL to furnish to Loonsfoot in electronically readable form the names, telephone numbers, last known addresses and email addresses of all members of the Class, and Social Security Numbers for all Class Members whose Notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding addressing, so Loonsfoot can issue class notice. Stake Center provides utility locating services for gas, power, communications, cable, and large fiber optic networks. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j0buqA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com STATE FARM: Class Cert Opposition Filing Extended to Feb. 5, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA PITKIN and DAN GROUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order extending the time to file opposition to and reply in support of motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel Present Date New Date Opposition: Dec. 18, 2024 Feb. 5, 2025 Reply: Jan. 31, 2025 March 19, 2025 Hearing: March 12, 2025 April 23, 2025 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=waAcaI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank M. Pitre, Esq. Nabilah A. Hossain, Esq. Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com nhossain@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cmplegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq. Anna S. McLean, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com amclean@sheppardmullin.com STATE FARM: Feb. 5, 2025 Filing of Opposition Papers Sought ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA PITKIN and DAN GROUT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their extension of time for filing the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, appoint class representatives, and appoint class counsel and Plaintiffs' reply to the same. The Parties have agreed that Defendant's Opposition papers will be due Feb. 5, 2025 and Plaintiffs' Reply will be due March 19, 2025. The Parties accordingly request that the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion be continued to April 23, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. The Parties have encountered challenges in scheduling the depositions of certain of Plaintiffs’ declarants, including experts Greg Regan and David Melzer. Regan is scheduled to testify at trial in an unrelated matter in late November, while Melzer is unavailable to be deposed until mid-December. Likewise, one of the Defendant's declarants will be unavailable for deposition from mid-November until January 2025 due to medical leave. The upcoming holidays have also limited the Parties' available dates. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XRUltP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frank M. Pitre, Esq. Nabilah A. Hossain, Esq. Tyson C. Redenbarger, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com nhossain@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cmplegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer M. Hoffman, Esq. Anna S. McLean, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com amclean@sheppardmullin.com STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Winter Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Stronghold Digital Mining 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 Winter class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Case No. 1:22-cv-3088). On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77k and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results, the Company's stock price fell, causing significant losses and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The amended complaint also alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act based on alleged false or misleading statements in the Company's prospectus related to its initial public offering. On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court largely denied on August 10, 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Court entered a Case Management Order, which set a number of case deadlines, including the completion of all discovery by April 21, 2025. On January 19, 2024, the Court granted the motion of one co-lead plaintiff to withdraw from the case, leaving one plaintiff remaining. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on February 19, 2024, and defendants’ response to that motion is due on June 10, 2024. weThe defendants continue to believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend these suits vigorously. Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (NASDAQ: SDIG), a crypto asset mining company, focuses on mining Bitcoin in the United States. It also operates coal refuse power generation facility. The company was incorporated in 2021 and is headquartered in New York, New York. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: Deruelle Sues Over Sandwiches' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------ HEATHER DERUELLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SUBWAY RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00941 (M.D.N.C., November 12, 2024), seeks 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 its Steak & Cheese sandwich contains at least 200% more meat than the actual sandwiches that customers receive. However, Plaintiff found out that that there was barely any steak in the sandwich and that the photographs that she relied on were grossly misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and for violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Subway Restaurants, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Milford, CT. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany N. Lawson, Esq. Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: tiffany.lawson@poulinwilley.com paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com SYSCO SACRAMENTO: Court Adopts Proposed Briefing Schedule --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fite v. Sysco Sacramento, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01633 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 10, 2021), the Hon. Judge Daniel J. Calabretta entered an order adopting the parties proposed briefing schedule. -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification within 30 days after the Court's ruling on Defendant's forthcoming motion for judgment on the pleadings and shall notice said motion for hearing on a date at least 14 days after the matter is fully briefed. -- The Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion within 60 days after service of Plaintiffs' motion. -- The Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed within 60 days thereafter. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Sysco provides food services.[CC] TARGET CORPORATION: Jibowu Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Priscilla Jibowu, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Target Corporation of Minnesota, Case No. 1:17-cv-03875 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Nov. 14, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:24-cv-04189-NEB-TNL to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc Scott Hepworth, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-1199 Fax: (212) 532-3801 Email: marc@hgrlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Joel Andersen, Esq. Joseph G Schmitt, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 250 Marquette Avenue, Suite 800 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 305-7500 Email: jandersen@nilanjohnson.com jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com TAYLOR FRESH: Onion Products Contaminated With E. Coli, Keene Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ TREVOR KEENE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TAYLOR FRESH FOODS, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-07981 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 14, 2024) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated who purchased Taylor Fresh Foods, A/K/A Taylor Farms, Onion Products. According to the complaint, the Products are unfit for their intended consumption because they are contaminated with the harmful bacteria, E. coli. Each of the products was manufactured by the Defendant, distributed to other locations and then sold to consumers McDonald’s restaurants across parts of the United States. The Plaintiff became ill following consumption of the Products, the lawsuit alleges. On Oct. 22, 2024, the Defendant began investigating the Products due to possible E. coli outbreak. Most people in the outbreak reported eating the Quarter Pounder hamburger at McDonald's before becoming sick. Through marketing and sale, the Defendant represented that the Products are safe for people, including pregnant women and their newborns, adults aged 65 or older, and people with weakened immune systems. The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased were contaminated with E. coli. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for consumption and not contaminated by harmful bacteria, which can cause a serious infection. Because Plaintiff was injured by the Products and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous Products, which they purchased under the presumption that the Products were safe, they have suffered losses. As a result of these losses, the Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable remedies, the suit contends. Plaintiff Keene bought a McDonald's Quarter Pounder for himself on Oct. 21, 2024. Soon after his purchase, the Plaintiff allegedly began experiencing many of the symptoms associated with E. coli infection. Taylor Fresh Foods is an Operator of a fresh fruits and vegetables brand offering fresh-cut packaged produce.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com THOMPSON COBURN: Mathiasen Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI MATHIASEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THOMPSON COBURN LLP, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01522 (E.D. Mo., November 13, 2024) is a class action arising out of the May 28 and 29, 2024 data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other current and former patients of Defendant's client Presbyterian Healthcare Services. According to the complaint, the Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for treatment. Because of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) negligence per se, (iii) breach of third-party-beneficiary contract, and (iv) unjust enrichment. Thompson Coburn LLP is a St. Louis, Missouri-based law firm that employs more than 400 attorneys at offices throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel F. Harvath, Esq. HARVATH LAW GROUP, LLC 75 W. Lockwood, Suite #1 Webster Groves, MO 63119 Telephone: (314) 550-3717 E-mail: dharvath@harvathlawgroup.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com TICKETMASTER LLC: Pomeroy Suit Transferred to D. Montana -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Pomeroy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ticketmaster LLC, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Snowflake Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-08809 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on Nov. 15, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00177-BMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle. Ticketmaster Entertainment, LLC -- https://www.ticketmaster.com/ -- is an American ticket sales and distribution company based in Beverly Hills, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kiley Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Dr., Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Phone: (805) 270-7100 Email: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel Scott Carlton, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Ste 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 683-6113 Email: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com TIFFANY AND COMPANY: Marks Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Nathan Marks, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TIFFANY AND COMPANY, a New York corporation; TIFFANY AND COMPANY U.S. SALES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-618984 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08016. The Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action Complaint against Defendants which sets forth the following causes of action: Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Failure to Pay All Sick Time; Wage Statement Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam Y. Siegel, Esq. Kishaniah Dhamodaran, Esq. Victoria J. Ramirez, 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 kishaniah.dhamo@jacksonlewis.com victoria.ramirez@jacksonlewis.com TOM VILSACK: Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Denied w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HAIYAN CHEN, KENYA WATSON, S.O., GERTRUDE CRIBBS, HANA BROOME, and MEI IENG LEE, individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated, v. TOM VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and CINDY LONG, in her official capacity as Administrator of the USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Case No. 1:23-cv-01440-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for class certification. The Court finds that deciding the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment will conserve judicial resources and further this litigation in an efficient manner. The Plaintiffs have recently issued a third-party subpoena and, contrary to their position, further discovery may be required before class certification to determine whether their claims are typical of those of the putative class. Furthermore, any question as to the appropriate scope of relief in a case challenging agency action will properly be addressed on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and resolution of these questions will necessarily affect the parties' briefing of the class certification motion. The Plaintiffs may re-file their motion for leave to file class certification after the Court decides the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 11, 2024, Plaintiffs requested leave to move for class certification pursuant to a schedule that would proceed simultaneously with that set for the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. On October 25, 2024, Defendants opposed Plaintiffs’ request for leave to move for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KDQTmt at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Reyes Suit Administratively Closed ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-21045-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order as follows: 1. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay Under First-Filed Rule is granted. This case is stayed and administratively closed pending a final judgment in Norman. v. Trans Union LLC, No. 2:18-cv-05225 (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 5, 2018) 2. Within fourteen days of an order entering final judgment in Norman v. Trans Union LLC, No. 2:18-cv-05225 (E.D. Pa. filed Dec. 5, 2018), the parties shall file a joint status report, telling us what happened in that case and stating their positions on what should happen in this case. 3. All deadlines and hearings are terminated, and any pending motions are denied as moot. The court's decision not to follow the first-filed rule was based on a finding that "the similarities between the two actions do not meet the Eleventh Circuit's 'substantial overlap' standard" — and had nothing to do with the fact that the second case was filed much later than the first. This is a consumer class action brought for redress of violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), by the Defendants Trans Union, LLC. Trans Union operates as a global information and insights company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xNBakb at no extra charge.[CC] TREEHOUSE FOODS: Berbano Sues Over Contaminated Products -------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Berbano, Michael Walsh, Michelle Garcia, Marla Knepper, Kristen Beckham, and Tracy Foster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11743 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 14, 2024), is brought on behalf of consumers nationwide who bought Defendant's frozen breakfast products manufactured at its Brantford, Ontario, Canada facility and which possess an expiration or "best by" date between October 1, 2024 and October 11, 2025 (collectively herein, the "Products"). The Products were and are unfit for distribution and/or consumption because they became contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, a harmful bacterium which causes the infection listeriosis and can lead to severe symptoms including but not limited to fever, muscle aches, fatigue, confusion, seizures, and loss of balance. Individuals who are pregnant and become infected with listeriosis can suffer negative pregnancy outcomes including miscarriage and stillbirth. In the most severe cases, listeriosis can be fatal. The Defendant manufactures, warrants, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells various frozen breakfast products under several brand names, including 365 Organic, Best Choice, Always Save, Schnucks, Private Selection, Kodiak Cakes, and Kroger brands, among many others. On October 18, 2024, Defendant announced a recall of some frozen waffle products due to the potential for contamination with L. monocytogenes, which provided information for consumers regarding which products were affected. The recall notice stated "there have been no confirmed reports of illness linked to the recalled products to date." The Defendant claims the contamination was discovered through routine testing. Treehouse expanded the recall on October 22, 2024 to include all products within shelf-life manufactured at its Brantford, Ontario, Canada facility, and now includes frozen toaster waffles, Belgian waffles, and pancake products The October 18, 2024 and October 22, 2024 recalls are collectively referred to as the "Recalls." The Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased the products without notice or knowledge that the Products were worthless and/or worth less than the price they paid, and they are individuals who experienced a range of symptoms consistent with listeriosis after consuming the Products. The Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased the Products had they known the products contained, or might have contained, dangerous or toxic levels of L. monocytogenes and/or that Defendant did not adequately test, screen, and/or inspect the Products before selling them, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased the products. Treehouse Foods, Inc., is a manufacturer of frozen breakfast food products, including frozen waffles and pancakes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. Dominick Larry, Esq. NICK LARRY LAW LLC 1720 W. Division St. Chicago, IL 60622 Phone: 773.694.4690 Fax: 773.694.4691 Email: nick@nicklarry.law - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Samuel R. Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AK 72202 Phone: 501-312-8500 Fax: 501-312-8505 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513-345-8291 Fax: 513-345-8294 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Antitrust-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods 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 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the antitrust-related class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On August 30, 2019, a putative class of non-supervisory production and maintenance employees at chicken processing plants in the continental United States filed class action complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other poultry processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for non-supervisory production and maintenance workers in violation of federal antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits making similar allegations were consolidated including an amended consolidated complaint containing additional allegations concerning turkey processing plants naming additional defendants. On May 10, 2024 and June 3, 2024, the Company participated in mediation with the putative class plaintiffs. Following the mediation, on June 14, 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the putative class plaintiffs to settle all claims in the case for an aggregate amount of $115.5 million. As a result, the Company increased its legal contingency accrual for claims related to this matter to $116 million at September 28, 2024 from $60 million as of September 30, 2023. This agreement in principle remains subject to court approval. While it believes it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, it believes that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend Bui Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods 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 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bui class suit in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. On February 18, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against the Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, and other beef packer defendants in the Supreme Court of British Columbia styled Bui v. Cargill, Incorporated et al. The putative class is comprised of direct and indirect beef purchasers in Canada between January 1, 2015 and the present, and alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price of beef, as well as to fix, maintain, control, prevent, or lessen the production or supply of beef. The complaint alleges a violation of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Civil Code of Québec. It seeks declarations regarding the alleged conspiracy, general damages, aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and interest. The Company has not recorded any liability for these foregoing matters as it does not believe a loss is probable, nor does it believe that a range of possible loss, if any, is reasonably estimable at this time, because the proceedings are in preliminary stages. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend De Bellefeuille Suit in Quebec --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Foods 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 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the De Bellefeuille class suit in the Superior Court of Quebec. On March 24, 2022, a putative class action was commenced against the Company, Tyson Fresh Meats, and other beef packer defendants in the Superior Court of Quebec styled De Bellefeuille v. Cargill, Incorporated et al. The putative class is comprised of direct and indirect beef purchasers in Canada between January 1, 2015 and the present, and alleges that the defendants conspired to fix, maintain, increase, or control the price of beef, as well as to fix, maintain, control, prevent, or lessen the production or supply of beef. The complaint alleges a violation of the Competition Act, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and a violation of the Civil Code of Quebec. It seeks declarations regarding the alleged conspiracy, general damages, aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and interest. The Company has not recorded any liability for these foregoing matters as it does not believe a loss is probable, nor does it believe that a range of possible loss, if any, is reasonably estimable at this time, because the proceedings are in preliminary stages. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. TYSON FOODS: Settlement in Antitrust Suit for Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyson Foods 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 12, 2024, that the antitrust violation class suit settlement is subject to the final approval of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On November 11, 2022, a putative class of employees at beef-processing and pork-processing plants in the continental United States filed a class action complaint against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as several other beef-processing and pork-processing companies, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants directly and through a wage survey and benchmarking service exchanged information regarding labor rates in an effort to depress and fix the rates of wages for employees in violation of federal antitrust laws. On December 22, 2023, after a mediation between the parties, the Company and the putative class plaintiffs reached an in-principle agreement to settle. While the Company believes it has valid and meritorious defenses against the allegations, it believes that the proposed settlement is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company agreed to pay the putative class an aggregate amount of $72.5 million. The settlement agreement remains subject to court approval. If the court grants final approval to the settlement, it will completely resolve all claims made against the Company in this matter. During fiscal 2024, the Company recorded an accrual for the $72.5 million proposed settlement which remains accrued as of September 28, 2024. The Company does not believe that a range of possible loss, if any, in excess of the recorded accrual is reasonably estimable at this time. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries is one of the world's largest food companies. It operates a fully vertically-integrated chicken production process, integrated operations consisting of breeding stock, contract farmers, feed production, processing, further-processing, marketing and transportation of chicken and related specialty products, including animal and pet food ingredients. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bonhomme Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Desmond Bonhomme, Daniel Tyler, individually and on Behalf of all Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Eli Lilly and Company, Case No. CGC-24-618842 was removed from the Superior Court of CA, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 14, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07998 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Uber Technologies, Inc. -- https://www.uber.com/ -- is an American multinational transportation company that provides ride-hailing services, courier services, food delivery, and freight transport.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Kate Tainsky Spelman, Esq. JENNER AND BLOCK LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246 Phone: (213) 239-5100 Fax: (213) 239-5199 Email: kspelman@jenner.com UNITED MORTGAGE: Court Junks Mattson Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK MATTSON, v. UNITED MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:18-cv-00996-AB (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Amy Baggio entered an order adopting Judge You's Findings and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification is granted. The Court has considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes that there is no basis to modify the F&R. The Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's F&R. On Sept. 16, 2024, Magistrate Judge Youlee Yim You issued her Findings and Recommendation ("F&R"), recommending that this Court grant the Defendant's Motion to Deny Class Certification. The Plaintiff objected and Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC responded. United Mortgage is a banking firm specializing in mortgage, purchase, and refinancing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ZUyNx at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED NETWORK: Stipulation on Class Cert Deadlines OK'd -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order granting stipulation regarding deadlines associated with motion for class certification: United Network for Organ Sharing is the private, non-profit organization that manages the U.S. organ transplantation system. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 12, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sf7G02 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED SERVICES: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert. by Feb. 5, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, KALITHA JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered a class certification schedule order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification no later than Feb. 5, 2025. Defendants shall file their brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification no later than June 4, 2025. Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief in support of their Motion for Class Certification no later than Aug. 13, 2025. 2. 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 Feb. 5, 2025. 3. Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom Defendant(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 June 4, 2025. 4. The parties shall file a joint status report with the Court no later than Sept. 8, 2025. 5. All subsequent scheduling order deadlines are stayed pending ruling on the motion for class certification United Services is an American financial services company providing insurance and banking product. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 14, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EM4I7N at no extra charge.[CC] UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert. Discovery Due Sept. 17, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID LIVINGSTON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UPMC BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. D/B/A WORK PARTNERS F/K/A UPMC WORK PARTNERS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00914-RJC (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Robert Colville entered a case management order as follows 1. Rule 26(a) disclosures shall be made on or before Dec. 4, 2024. 2. The parties shall move to add new parties or amend the pleadings by Jan. 31, 2025. 3. Class certification discovery relating to Plaintiff's Rule 23 PMWA claim will be completed by Sept. 17, 2025. 4. Plaintiff will file a motion for court-authorized notice regarding the FLSA claim no later than May 30, 2025. 5. Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed by Oct. 17, 2025. 6. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification shall be filed by Nov. 17, 2025. 7. Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum in support of Class Certification, if any, shall be filed by Dec. 8, 2025. 8. The Court will conduct an in-person Rule 23 Class Certification Hearing on Jan. 6, 2026, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8C. 9. Deadlines for fact and expert discovery will be discussed at the post-discovery status conference. Upmc Benefit was founded in 2015. The company's line of business includes providing insurance agent and broker services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hs4CCe at no extra charge.[CC] USHEALTH ADVISORS: Isaacs Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USHealth Advisors, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shawn Isaacs, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, Unitedhealth Group Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00216-TCB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 14, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. USHEALTH Advisors -- https://www.ushealthgroup.com/ -- is a wholly-owned national sales and distribution subsidiary of USHEALTH Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com - and - Max Scott Morgan, Esq. THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC 1515 Market Street, Ste. #1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 587-6240 Fax: (215) 689-0875 Email: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com VAN LEEUWEN ICE CREAM: Ozuzu Sues Over Deceptive Labeling --------------------------------------------------------- Chioma Viola Ozuzu and Telon Weathington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Van Leeuwen Ice Cream, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08714 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought seeking to challenge the deceptive labeling, marketing, and sale of Defendant's Van Leeuwen Honeycomb ice cream (the "Products"). Specifically, Defendant advertises the Products as "Honeycomb" ice cream, leading reasonable consumers to believe the Products contain honeycomb. Despite this, the Products do not contain any honeycomb, let alone any honey whatsoever. As such, the Products are falsely and deceptively advertised. This deceptive marketing practice defies the expectations of reasonable consumers. Consumers reasonably expect ice cream products to contain the ingredients plainly described in their names, as is the case with competitor "Honeycomb" ice creams, as well as other Van Leeuwen ice cream varieties. The Plaintiffs and other consumers purchased the Products and paid a premium price based upon their reliance on Defendant's representations that the Products contained honeycomb. Had Plaintiffs and other consumers been aware that the Products do not contain honeycomb, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid significantly less for them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured by Defendant's deceptive business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a scoop of Van Leeuwen Honeycomb ice cream from a Van Leeuwen Ice Cream store. The Defendant owns, manages, and operates an international ice cream business, Van Leeuwen Ice Cream.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Abiri, Esq. CUSTODIO & DUBEY, LLP 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2520 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 593-9095 Facsimile: (213) 785-2899 Email: abiri@cd-lawyers.com - and - Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 751-5948 Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com VGW HOLDINGS: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DESTINY KENNEDY, On behalf of herself and all Other Georgia citizens similarly situated, v. VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, VGW MALTA LIMITED, VGW LUCKYLAND INC., and VGW GP LIMITED, Case No. 1:24-cv-02184-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting Defendants' unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to certify class until 30 days after the Court rules on Defendants' motion to dismiss or transfer, due Nov. 14, 2024. VGW is a developer and distributor of online social casino and poker games. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 8, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ByIEv0 at no extra charge.[CC] VIESTE SPE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Crossfirst Bank ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Crossfirst Bank, et al., v. Vieste SPE LLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-01637-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered an order granting summary judgment for the Defendants. The Court need not reach the other issues raised by the Defendants, as Plaintiffs' claims fail due to the absence of evidence of reliance. Because their fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims fail, so too do the derivative aiding and abetting claims. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case. The Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing reliance at trial, and they have failed to make a showing sufficient to establish its existence here. Summary judgment is thus appropriate. The case arises from the sale of certain industrial development bonds sold to finance a waste-management project developed by Vieste. The Plaintiffs filed this suit on April 27, 2018. It began as a putative class action on behalf of "all purchasers of securities offered for sale through the [OS]." Vieste specializes in capital program management for private, public, quasi-public, and non-profit clients throughout North America. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3U8jRw at no extra charge.[CC] VIPRI CORP: Parties in Cuesta Must Confer Initial Case Management ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARCO ANTONIO CUESTA, v. VIPRI CORPORATION d/b/a CACIO E VINO and GIUSTO PRIOLA, Case No. 1:24-cv-07101-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order that, in the event the parties do not reach a settlement, counsel must promptly meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), in preparation for an initial case management conference with the Court. The Court further entered an order that within 14 days after their last mediation session, the parties shall file a Rule 26(f) Statement, via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties. To the extent the parties are in disagreement concerning any portion of the Pre-Conference Statement, they may submit separate proposals as to such portion, without argument. Upon receipt of the Rule 26(f) Statement, the Court will schedule the initial case management conference. Cacio E Vino is an Italian restaurant offering pasta, wood-fired pizza & other Sicilian dishes. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sYpTMZ at no extra charge.[CC] VISA INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for January 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Visa Inc. (NYSE: V) between November 16, 2023, and September 23, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Visa investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Visa class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29131 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Visa was not in compliance with federal antitrust laws; (2) Visa did not have effective internal programs and policies to assess and control compliance with federal antitrust laws; and (3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 20, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29131 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] VISA INC: Continues to Defend Burke Consumer Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Visa 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 the Burke consumer class action. In October 2011, a purported consumer class action, Burke, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al. (Burke) was filed against Visa and Mastercard in the same federal court challenging the same ATM access fee rules. Two other purported consumer class actions challenging the rules, later combined in Mackmin, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., (Mackmin), were also filed in October 2011 in the same federal court naming Visa, Mastercard and three financial institutions as defendants. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees where available under federal and state law, including under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and consumer protection statutes. On August 4, 2021, the district court granted class certification in each case. On August 8, 2022, the district court in Mackmin granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a class action settlement with the three financial institution defendants and entered final judgments of dismissal as to those institutions. On May 2, 2024, Visa and Mastercard entered a definitive class settlement agreement with plaintiffs in Mackmin, which the district court preliminarily approved on July 26, 2024. Burke, the remaining consumer action, is still pending. Visa Inc. is an American multinational payment card services corporation. WATERMARK RETIREMENT: Faces Brown Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- EUNIQUE BROWN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WATERMARK RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; JOCELYN FABROS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV094430 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., October 3, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff, on their own behalf and on behalf of Class Members, brings this action seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties, failure to indemnify work-related expenses, failing to pay vested vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from approximately June of 2016 through to the present as a non-exempt employee, with duties that included, but were not limited to, providing nursing care to patients. Watermark Retirement Communities, LLC is a senior living community operator based in Tucson, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. Henry G. Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com jef@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com WESTERN ELECTRICAL: Maldonado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. The case is styled as Jesus Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc., Case No. 24CV020003 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., October 3, 2024). The case type is classified under Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death tort. This complaint is assigned under Hon. Lauri A. Damrell. The case management conferences are scheduled for June 13, 2025 and November 14, 2025. Western Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that provides apprenticeship, electrical, and low voltage training services.[BN] WHOLE FOODS: Winkelman Seeks to Certify Class of Plan Participants ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAUNA WINKELMAN, MICHAEL LENON, SCOTT CENNA, KALEA NIXON, ROBERT GOLDORAZENA, CHAD DIEHL and ROSS NANFELDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. EMPLOYER COMMITTEE, THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. 401(K) COMMITTEE, THE WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-50., Case No. 1:23-cv-01352-RP (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23: -- certifying the following proposed Class: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between Nov. 6, 2017 through the date of judgment." -- appointing the Plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed class, and -- appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the Class. Whole Foods is an American multinational supermarket chain. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 13, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PaU9Qb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Wells, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jayw@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road, Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com XEROX HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Xerox Holdings Corporation ("Xerox" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: XRX). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) after a large workforce reduction, Xerox's salesforce was reorganized with new territory assignments and account coverage; (2) as0. a result, the Company's salesforce productivity was disrupted; (3) as a result, Xerox had a lower rate of sell-through of older products; (4) the difficulties in flushing out older product would delay the launch of key products; and (5) as a result, Xerox was likely to experience lower sales and revenue. If you bought shares of Xerox between January 25, 2024 and October 28, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/xerox/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is January 20, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] YANKA INDUSTRIES: Discloses Personal/Video Info to Meta, Lien Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ REBEKKA LIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. YANKA INDUSTRIES, INC. D/B/A MASTERCLASS, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08007 (N.D. Cal., November 15, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) the personally identifiable information or Facebook ID (FID) and video information of its digital subscribers without consent. The Defendant embedded within the website a code called Facebook Pixel to collect users' data. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. Yanka Industries, Inc., doing business as MasterClass, is an online streaming platform company headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Edwin E. Elliott, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com edwine@shamisgentile.com ZETA GLOBAL: 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 Zeta Global Holdings Corp. (NYSE: ZETA) resulting from allegations that Zeta Global may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Zeta Global 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=31333 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 13, 2024, Culper Research published a report entitled "Zeta Global Holdings Corp ZETA: Shams, Scams, and Spam." Culper Research alleged Zeta Global's integrity of its data collection and reported financials had been undermined. The report claims Zeta Global "formed "two-way" contracts with third party consent farms wherein the Company simultaneously acts as both a supplier and a buyer of consumer data, not only allowing the Company to flatter reported revenue growth, but raising round tripping concerns." In addition, the report claims Zeta Global uses "consent farms i.e., sham websites that hoodwink millions of consumers each month into handing their data over to Zeta under false pretenses, baited by job applications, stimulus money, or other rewards that simply do not exist." On this news, Zeta Global's stock price fell $10.46 per share, or 37.1%, to close at $17.76 per share on November 13, 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 has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ********* 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 ***