/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241203.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 3, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 242
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carlson Class Suit Alleges
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Manno Class Suit Alleges
AGC CHEMICALS: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Americus Class Suit Says
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Feller VPPA Class Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in GateGuard
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Protect Info, Montenegro Alleges
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Leonard Consumer Suit
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend UFCW Local Class Suit
ANDREW CUOMO: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid
ANGI INC: Continues to Defend HomeAdviser Class Suit in Colorado
ANGIODYNAMICS INC: Snyder Suit Transferred to S.D. California
APPLE INC: Faces Narayanan Class Suit Over Lithium-Ion Batteries
APPLE INC: Turner "Cellular Data Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS: Free Sues Over Undervaluing of Loss Vehicles
ARTSANA USA: Trial in Zarfati Class Suit Set for July 25, 2025
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Christiansen Securities Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Enyart Securities Class Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Luo Securities Class Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS:Continues to Defend Edwards Securities Class Suit
AURORA UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Decertify Class in Antitrust Suit
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Lyons Class Suit in Los Angeles
BEAUTY HEALTH CO: Continues to Defend Davalos Consumer Class Suit
BETTER TAX: Parties Seek to Vacate Scheduling Order in Pinn Suit
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Cert Scheduling Entered in Greene
BIG EASY: Case Management Order Entered in Dehart Class Suit
BIG EASY: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Case Management Order
BLADE AIR MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit
BLOOMBERG LP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Syeed Suit Due Feb. 18, 2025
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Nesterenko Suit
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
BROOGE ENERGY: Continues to Defend White Class Suit in California
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Hamby Shareholder Class Suit
CARBON HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in Aubin Due Sept. 3, 2025
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Steahle Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
CARLOTZ INC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Certification
CATERPILLAR INC: Discovery Plan Must Include Class Cert Deadline
CENTRAL BANK: Rutherford Seeks to Certify National Class
CERES CLASSIC: Continues to Defend Philadelphia Antitrust Suit
CF MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Rachau Suit Says
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Settlement in N.D. Suit Gets Initial No
COLUMBUS LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Young Suit
COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Miller Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Nov. 21, 2025
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Costan Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
CREDIT ONE: Aslani Case Remanded to Kings County Supreme Court
CVS HEALTH: Gonzalez Alleges Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
CVS PHARMACY: Bid to Dismiss Newport First Amended Complaint Nixed
DAVE JEPPESEN: Sheduling Order Amended in Rossow Class Action
DENALI WATER: Spinas Sues Over Noxious Fumes from Storage Lagoon
DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Seeks Conditional Cert of Action
DENVER, CO: Walter Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Recruits
DILIGENT SERVICES: Ramey Sues Over Data Security Incident
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
DOLLAR BUDGET: Henrriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DORAL CENTRE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
EATON CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Schlesinger
EIDP INC: Class Experts Deposition Due Jan. 24, 2025
ELEGANCE LIVING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Gervacio Alleges
ELI LILLY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Insulin Pricing Scheme
EMIRATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Farah Suit Due March 17, 2025
EQUIFAX INC: Stolfat Bid for Class Certification Tossed
EVERON SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goss Alleges
EZ LENDER LLC: Villalta Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Certification Filing Due March 28, 2025
FCA US: Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Expert Opinion
FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Angus Due Nov. 14, 2025
FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Permanently Seal Class Supporting Docs
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Bid for Class Certification Terminated
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Reconsideration of Nov. 7, 2024 Order in Lessin
GENERAL PARTS: Dralle Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
GEO GROUP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
GN HEARING CARE: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
GOOGLE INC: Valencia Bid to Remove Incorrectly Filed Docs OK'd
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Class Suit Over Kratom Products' Deceptive Ads
HONDA MOTOR: Levitt, et al., Appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3, 2025
HUMACYTE INC: Cutshall Sues Over Drop in Share Price
HUMANA INC: Class Cert Opposition Extended to Dec. 17
IC SYSTEM: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief
IMPACT MHC MANAGEMENT: Knox Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Suit Over Wheel of Fortune-Themed Games
JACKSON LABORATORY: Faces Seijas Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
JEREMY BARR: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Detainee Class
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covacheula Bid for Class Certification Tossed
JKS HOME: Court Certifies Two Classes for Settlement in Smith Suit
KALEIDA HEALTH: Class Cert Teleconference in Clearly Set for Dec. 5
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification OK'd
KINO LORBER: Faces Dallum Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LIFE CHANGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Green Alleges
LIFE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Filing in Hoffman Due Sept. 22, 2025
LIFTED LIQUIDS: Hernandez Sues Over Mislabeled Vape Products
LONGS DRUG: Mullin Suit Removed from State Court to D. Nevada
MAGNI GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Class Suit
MARK CUBAN: Filing of Supplemental Reply Extended to Dec. 17
MASTERCORP INC: Settlement Gets Final Approval
MDL 2262: Defendants Seek to File Memo Under Seal
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Joinder Deadline Extended to March 7, 2025
META PLATFORMS: Racamontes Sues Over Unfair Netflix Fee Scheme
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Rodriguez Seeks Class Conditional Status
MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Pretrial Conference Set for Dec. 3
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Schelling Suit Pending
MINNEAPOLIS RAG STOCK: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
MONSANTO COMPANY: Corsi Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Karl Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MORGAN STANLEY: Mckinney Sues Over Unlawful Conduct
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Panorama Class Suit
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Patient Billing Class Suit in CA
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend PGT-A Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Kolev Suit
NATURESTAR NORTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Little Due Feb. 2, 2026
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply
NEW YORK, NY: Edris Sues Over Failure to Protect Rights
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Class Suit
OLD COPPER: Krantz Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
OXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
PATH PROPERTIES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property
PIONEER BANCORP: Brandes Class Suit Stayed
PIONEER BANCORP: Court Stays O'Malley's Oven Suit
PREMERA BLUE: Deferred Class Cert. Bid Renoted to March 14, 2025
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Morciglio Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
REGAL CINEMAS: Settlement Deal in Jones Suit Gets Initial Nod
REMEDY TAX SOLUTIONS: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
RICKY DIXON: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 17
SAINT XAVIER: Failed to Protect Customers' Info, Ames Suit Says
SELENE FINANCE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Cruz Lawsuit
SENSIO INC: Brandon Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Class Suit in N.Y.
SET FORTH INC: Martin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
SET FORTH: Dekenipp Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
SET FORTH: Gravely Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
SET FORTH: Mason Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
SPIKED WIRELESS: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Cal. Super.
SPRINKLR INC: Marcheschi Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
ST. JOHN'S: Seeks Summary Judgment Pre-Motion Conference
SUELLE CORP: Gomberg Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
TAKARA SAKE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
TARGET CORPORATION: Dawson Suit Removed to N.D. California
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Martinez Says
UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, James Says
WEDRIVEU INC: Faces Baker Class Action Suit Over GIPA Violations
WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Seeks Dec. 23 Class Cert Filing Deadline
WM TECHNOLOGY INC: Continues to Defend Ishak Shareholder Class Suit
XCEL ENERGY: Class Cert Filing in Parker Modified to Feb. 28, 2025
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend PRA Violation Suit
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Publicity Statutes Suit
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in WA
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Ohio
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Carlson Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carlson v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case
No. 2:24-cv-06738-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024) is a class action
seeking for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure
to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic
chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the
Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting, the suit contends.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
Mr. Carlson is a resident and citizen of Hendersonville, Tennessee.
He regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in
training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a
military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was diagnosed
with hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants include AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE 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; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50),
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN GACOVINO P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 761-0467
3M COMPANY: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Manno Class Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE MANNO v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-05770-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 10, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the suit contends.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities.
Mr. Manno is a resident and citizen of Florida. He regularly used,
and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF during his employment as
a military and/or civilian firefighter. He was diagnosed with
ulcerative colitis as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants include 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 PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.).
3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the
early 2000s.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Murrill, Jr., Esq.
Keith Jackson, Esq.
RILEY & JACKSON, P.C.
3530 Independence Dr.
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 879-5000
Facsimile: (205) 879-5901
AGC CHEMICALS: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Americus Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELLEN AMERICUS v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE
EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-05782-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 10, 2024) is a class action seeking
for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to
aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear
("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per
and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or
TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting, the suit
contends.
PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products
at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training
and firefighting activities.
Plaintiff Americus is a resident and citizen of Cordova, Alaska.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Plaintiff was
diagnosed with kidney cancer and other injuries, as a result of
exposure to Defendants’ AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants include ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; 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; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company,
AGC is a producer of fluorochemical technologies, compounds, and
specialty materials.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Telephone: (618) 656-4400
Facsimile: (618) 656-4401
ALLIANCE ENTERTAINMENT: Continues to Defend Feller VPPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Entertainment 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 12, 2024,
that Company continues to defend itself from the Feller VPPA class
suit.
On August 8, 2024, a class action complaint, Feller v. Alliance
Entertainment, LLC and DirectToU, LLC, was filed under the Video
Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA").
The complaint alleges that the Company violated the VPPA by
disclosing users' personally identifiable information, as well as
information regarding videos they viewed on the Company's website,
to Facebook through the use of Facebook Pixel.
The Company is evaluating the claims and intends to defend against
the allegations vigorously.
Alliance Entertainment Holding Corporation is a comprehensive
provider of distribution services for pre-recorded music, video
movies, video games, and associated accessories and merchandise.
AMAZON.COM INC: Court Stays Discovery in GateGuard
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GateGuard, Inc. v.
Amazon.com Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-09321-JGK-VF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order granting the
Parties' motion to reserve the right to move the Court to lift the
stay in advance of the resolution of Amazon's motion.
-- Discovery is stayed pending resolution of Amazon's motion to
dismiss, deny class certification, and strike the class
allegations.
Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SkP1hI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eden P. Quainton, Esq.
QUAINTON LAW, PLLC
2 Park Ave, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 419-0575
E-mail: eden.quainton@quaintonlaw.net
The Defendants are represented by:
Anne M. Champion, Esq.
Christopher D. Belelieu, Esq.
David P. Salant, Esq.
Marc Aaron Takagaki, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10166
Telephone: (212) 351-4000
E-mail: achampion@gibsondunn.com
cbeleliue@gibsondunn.com
dsalant@gibsondunn.com
mtakagaki@gibsondunn.com
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Fails to Protect Info, Montenegro Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN MONTENEGRO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE
COMPANY d/b/a ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10679
(D.N.J., Nov. 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
properly secure and to safeguard the Plaintiff's and other
similarly situated individuals' sensitive personal information
including, but to not limited to, their full names and Social
Security numbers.
AnnieMac is a nationwide mortgage loan provider that receives and
maintains sensitive personal and financial information from its
customers in connection with providing mortgage loan services.
On Nov. 14, 2024, AnnieMac filed an official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of the Maine Attorney General.
According to that Notice, between August 21 and August 23, 2024, an
unknown actor gained unauthorized access to AnnieMac's computer
systems and network, viewing and/or copying files containing
customers' Personal Information (the "Data Breach").
As a result, the sensitive Personal Information of approximately
171,000 current and former AnnieMac customers was compromised and
exposed to unauthorized third parties. The type of information
impacted by the Data Breach can be used to orchestrate a host of
fraudulent activities and financial fraud and identity theft.
Indeed, the entire purpose of these types of data breaches is to
misuse the information and/or to sell it to fraudsters on the dark
web.
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" were, and 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. As such, Plaintiff and Class Members
bring this action to recover for the harm they suffered and assert
the following claims: (i) Negligence, (ii) Negligence per se, (iii)
Breach of Implied Contract, (iv) Unjust Enrichment and (v) Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
AnnieMac is a nationwide mortgage loan provider that receives,
maintains, and stores large volumes of sensitive personal and
financial information from its customers in connection with
providing mortgage loan services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stefanie Colella-Walsh, Esq.
STARK & STARK, P.C., Esq.
100 American Metro Blvd
Telephone: (609) 895-7362
Facsimile: (609) 896-0629
E-mail: scolellawalsh@stark-stark.com
masstorts@stark-stark.com
- and -
David S. Almeida, Esq.
ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
849 W. Webster Ave.
Chicago, IL, 60614
Telephone: (312) 576-3024
E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Leonard Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals 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 Leonard consumer class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.
On September 5, 2024, Amneal was named as a defendant along with
CVS Pharmacy, Inc. in a putative consumer class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that generic guaifenesin products manufactured
by Amneal contain benzene through the use of carbomer, an inactive
ingredient. See Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-06280
(N.D. Cal.).
The complaint purports to plead, on behalf of a nationwide class
and California subclass, the following counts: breach of warranty;
unjust enrichment; fraud; and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.
The complaint seeks damages, including punitive damages,
restitution, other equitable monetary relief, injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Company's deadline to respond to the complaint, by motion or
answer, is December 16, 2024.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse
portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and
specialty branded pharmaceuticals.
AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend UFCW Local Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amneal Pharmaceuticals 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 UFCW local class suit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On November 14, 2023, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and other health
plans filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
multiple manufacturers, including the Company, alleging an illegal
conspiracy to restrict output of generic COLCRYS. See UFCW Local
1500 Welfare Fund et al. v. Takeda Pharma. U.S.A., Inc. et al, No.
1:23-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y.).
On February 28, 2024, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A. filed a motion
to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On March 13, 2024 and March 27, 2024, Amneal submitted a letter and
brief, respectively, informing the Court of its position that the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction over
Amneal.
That motion remains pending and the deadline to respond to the
complaint is set at 45 days after the court resolves the motion to
transfer.
Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company
that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse
portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and
specialty branded pharmaceuticals.
ANDREW CUOMO: Plaintiff Wins Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as E.B. by his guardians M.B.
and R.B., et al., v. Cuomo, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00735
(W.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 13, 2016), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J.
Vilardo entered an order granting motion to certify lass.
-- The two subclasses shall include those who meet the criteria
set
forth in the plaintiffs' proposed class definition.
-- The Court appoints Bruce A. Goldstein and Alexander J. Douglas
as
class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B)
and 23(g).
-- The case is referred back to Hon. Jeremiah J. McCarthy for
further
proceedings consistent with the referral order of April 3,
2023.
The nature of suit states American with Disabilities Act.[CC]
ANGI INC: Continues to Defend HomeAdviser Class Suit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angi 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 HomeAdviser class suit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
In July 2016, a putative class action, Airquip, Inc. et al. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:16-cv-1849, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint, as
amended in November 2016, alleged that HomeAdvisor engages in
certain deceptive practices affecting the professionals who join
its network, including charging them for substandard customer leads
and failing to disclose certain charges.
The complaint sought certification of a nationwide class consisting
of all HomeAdvisor professionals since October 2012, asserted
claims for fraud, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and
violation of the federal RICO statute and the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act, and sought injunctive relief and damages in an
unspecified amount.
In July 2018, plaintiffs' counsel filed a separate putative class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
Costello et al. v. HomeAdvisor, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-1802, on
behalf of the nine professionals also proposed as new plaintiffs in
the Airquip case, naming as defendants HomeAdvisor, the Company and
IAC (as well as an unrelated company), and asserting 45 claims
largely duplicative of those asserted in a proposed second amended
complaint in the Airquip case.
In November 2018, the judge presiding over the Airquip case issued
an order consolidating the two cases to proceed before him under
the caption In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation.
In September 2019, the court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' renewed motion for leave to file a consolidated second
amended complaint, naming as defendants, in addition to
HomeAdvisor, the Company and IAC, CraftJack, Inc. (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company) and two unrelated entities. In October
and December 2019, the four defendants affiliated with HomeAdvisor
filed motions to dismiss certain claims in the amended complaint.
In September 2020, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
In May 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification;
the defendants opposed the motion. On January 10, 2024, the court
issued an order largely denying the motion; while the court
certified certain classes seeking only injunctive relief based upon
alleged misappropriation of professional's intellectual property,
the court declined to certify any of the proposed classes
challenging lead quality and seeking monetary relief. On July 18,
2024, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for leave to appeal the district court's partial denial of
class certification. On August 20, 2024, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a second motion for class certification,
proposing somewhat narrower, state-based classes; the defendants
opposed the motion, which remains pending.
On February 26, 2024, the parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment on the plaintiffs' claims alleging misappropriation of
professional's intellectual property. On September 13, 2024, the
district court issued an order granting the defendants' motion and
dismissing the plaintiffs' misappropriation claims.
The Company believes that the allegations in this lawsuit are
without merit and will continue to defend vigorously against them.
Angi Inc., formerly ANGI Homeservices, Inc., connects quality home
service professionals with consumers across 500 different
categories, from repairing and remodeling homes to cleaning and
landscaping. The company is based in Denver, Colorado.
ANGIODYNAMICS INC: Snyder Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rebekah Snyder, individually, and others
similarly situated v. AngioDynamics Inc., Navilyst Medical, Inc.,
Case No. 4:24-cv-01058 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on Nov. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02178-JO-VET to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
AngioDynamics -- https://www.angiodynamics.com/ -- is a leading,
and transformative medical technology company focused on restoring
healthy blood flow in the body's vascular system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cameron Reid Cano, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLP
7718 Wood Hollow Dr., Ste. 105
Austin, TX 78731
Phone: (713) 806-5581
Fax: (512) 727-3432
APPLE INC: Faces Narayanan Class Suit Over Lithium-Ion Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY NARAYANAN and ROZ SAEDI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. APPLE INC., Case No. 5:24-cv-07286-NC
(N.D. Cal., Oct. 18, 2024) is a nationwide class action brought by
Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
consumers who purchased Apple MacBook Pro laptops equipped with
Apple-branded OEM lithium-ion batteries, Apple Magic Trackpads, or
Apple-branded OEM lithium-ion batteries for use in an Apple device
("Defective Devices") (for personal or household use and not for
resale ("Class" or "Class Members").
In June 2019, Apple announced that it had determined that certain
15-inch MacBook Pro laptops contained defective lithium-ion
batteries that could swell and expand, posing a fire hazard, and
issued a recall for those specific laptops. Specifically, the
recalled laptops were only those that had a 15.4 inch (diagonal)
display, 2/2-2.5 GHz processors, 256GB-1TB solid-state storage, two
Thunderbolt 2 ports, two USB 3 ports, and one HDMI port that were
sold between September 2015 and February 2017. Approximately
432,000 recalled laptops were sold in the United States. While
Apple recalled those specific laptop computers, it continues to
design, manufacture, and market MacBook laptops and other devices,
like the Apple Magic Trackpad, that are equipped with Apple-branded
OEM lithium-ion batteries that damage the consumer's devices and
present a serious safety risk, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff and the Class bring this suit for economic damages
they sustained. Given the massive number of the Defective Devices
sold nationwide, this class action is the proper vehicle for
addressing Defendant's misconduct and attaining needed relief for
this affected.
The Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Unlawful
Competition Law ("UCL"); violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); violations of the Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act, and common law claims.
Plaintiff Sanjay Narayanan is and was an individual citizen of the
State of Florida who purchased an Apple laptop that developed a
swollen battery forcing the Plaintiff to seek repair services
during the applicable statute of limitations period. The Plaintiff
also purchased an Apple Magic Trackpad that developed a swollen
battery.
Apple designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
APPLE INC: Turner "Cellular Data Plan" Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on April 24, 2025, will move this Court
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3)
for an order certifying a proposed class defined as follows:
"All purchasers, owners, users, or lessees of any Apple iPhones
in
the United States who used a limited cellular data plan with
that
iPhone while any version of iOS 13 was installed."
Excluded from the class are Defendant; any affiliate, parent,
or
subsidiary of Defendant; any entity in which Defendant has a
controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of
the
Defendant; any successor or assign of Defendant; anyone
employed
by counsel in this action; any judge to whom this case is
assigned, their spouse; and members of the judge's staff.
The Plaintiff further moves, under Rule 23(g), to appoint David
Berger and Amanda Karl of Gibbs Law Group LLP and Jason Dennett and
Kaleigh Boyd of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC as Class Counsel.
Finally, the Plaintiff asks the Court to direct notice to the class
under Rule 23(c)(2)(B), and order that: (1) the parties shall meet
and confer regarding the form and manner of that notice within 14
days of the Court’s certification order, and (2) Class Counsel
shall submit a proposed notice plan within 30 days of the Court’s
order.
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion; the accompanying
memorandum in support; the Declarations of Plaintiff Alasdair
Turner, David M. Berger, Jason Dennett, and Dr. Paroma Sanyal; the
evidence submitted in support of the motion; and any other evidence
and argument that may be presented to the Court.
Apple manufactures, sells, supports, and operates iPhones.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ba2ZQ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David M. Berger, Esq.
Amanda M. Karl, Esq.
Jane G. Farrell, Esq.
Jennifer Sun, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
amk@classlawgroup.com
jgf@classlawgroup.com
jsun@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
kboyd@tousley.com
ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS: Free Sues Over Undervaluing of Loss Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chanda Free, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY, Case No.
6:24-cv-01945-AA (D. Ore., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought on behalf of
claimants in Oregon who received a payment for the loss of a
totaled vehicle from Progressive where Progressive used valuation
reports prepared by Mitchell to determine the actual cash value
("ACV") of the loss vehicles as a result of the Defendant's
undervaluing comparable and total loss vehicles.
Through Mitchell's valuation, Progressive systemically thumbs the
scale when calculating the ACV of claimants' loss vehicles by
applying so-called "Projected Sold Adjustments" that are:
arbitrary; contrary to appraisal standards and methodologies; not
based in fact, as they are contrary to the used car industry's
market pricing and inventory management practices; not applied by
the major competitor of Defendant's vendor Mitchell; and on
information and belief, not applied by Progressive and Mitchell to
insureds in other states like California and Washington.
Specifically, Defendant, through Mitchell, systemically applies a
so-called "Projected Sold Adjustment" that results in a significant
downward adjustment to the base values of the comparable vehicles
used to calculate the ACV of Plaintiff's and Class members' total
loss vehicles. This reduction is contrary to the industry-standard
comparable, or "comp, methodology for appraising ACV" and is not
based in fact, as it is contrary to the used car industry's market
pricing and inventory management practices. The adjustment is
applied to each of the comparable vehicles on top of adjustments
for differences such as mileage, options, and equipment. The only
purported explanation for the downward adjustment appears on the
last page of the valuation reports and is a general, nondescript
statement claiming that the reduction "reflects the fact that
consumers typically negotiate a purchase price less than the list
price."
To arrive at its (incorrect) conclusion that consumers negotiate
down the list price of used autos, Progressive, through its
vendors, intentionally distorts the data, excludes transactions
that undercut its false hypothesis, and ignores market realities,
all for the purpose of applying a capricious and unjustified
Projected Sold Adjustment to artificially deflate the value of
total loss vehicles.
This pattern and practice of undervaluing comparable and total loss
vehicles when paying automobile total loss claims through
arbitrary, unsupported, and unjustified adjustments, which benefits
the insurer at the expense of the insured, violates Defendant's
policies with its insureds, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff contracted with Defendant Artisan and Truckers
Casualty Company for automobile
insurance
The Defendant provides insurance coverage throughout the
United States for first-party property damage under collision
and/or comprehensive coverage.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Edwin E. Elliott, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
edwine@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (786) 289-9471
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
- and -
Whitney Stark, Esq.
ALBIES & STARK
1500 SW First Ave., Suite 1000
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 308-4770
Email: whitney@albiesstark.com
ARTSANA USA: Trial in Zarfati Class Suit Set for July 25, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Zarfati, et al., v.
Artsana USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-21372 (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge K. Michael Moore entered an order granting motion to continue
deadlines:
-- Trial in this case is continued until the two-week trial period
of
July 28, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13-1, (thirteenth
floor)
United States Courthouse, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami,
Florida.
-- Counsel shall now report to their final pretrial conference on
July 15, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. and the calendar call on July 24,
2025, at 2:00 p.m. All deadlines established by this Court's
prior
Paperless Order Scheduling Trial in Miami are commensurately
extended in accordance with the new trial date set above.
The nature of suit states Contract -- Contract Product Liability.
Artsana provides baby related products.[CC]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Christiansen Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Christiansen securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York) (the "New York Action").
Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum
and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292
(filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and
Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York
lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive
officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the
safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in
violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages,
interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be
determined by the Court.
On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York
lawsuits.
On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order designating Steven
Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action
under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et
al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17,
2022 and September 2022.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated New York
Action on July 25, 2023.
On January 23, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion
to dismiss as to two specific statements.
The Company filed its answer to the complaint on March 8, 2024.
On October 25, 2024, a Spectrum stockholder (Ayoub) filed a
substantially similar putative securities class action complaint
asserting the same claims against the same defendants on behalf of
the same alleged class as the New York Action.
On October 30, 2024, Christiansen and Ayoub jointly moved for class
certification and for appointment as class representatives in the
New York Action.
On November 4, 2024, defendants filed a motion to disqualify
Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and for a stay of
proceedings pending appointment of a substitute lead plaintiff.
On November 6, 2024, the Court set a briefing schedule on the
defendants' motion to disqualify (briefing to be completed by
November 25, 2024) and stayed the New York Action pending
resolution of the defendants' motion.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Enyart Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Enyart securities class
suit in the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake
County, Illinois.
Enyart v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et. al., In the Circuit Court of
the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, Case No.
2024LA00000842. On November 8, 2024, this putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed by an alleged former Spectrum shareholder
who received Assertio shares in the Spectrum Merger, alleging that
Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and
directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 in connection with the registration statement for the
Assertio shares issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger.
In general terms, the complaint alleges that the registration
statement contained misrepresentations and omissions related to the
value of adding ROLVEDON to Assertio's portfolio of products.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission or a
recessionary measure of damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The
defendants have not yet been served with a copy of the complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Luo Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Luo securities class
suit in the United States District Court of the District of
Nevada.
The case is captioned Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No.
2:21-cv-01612.
On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and
certain of its former executive officers and directors made false
or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
about Spectrum's business and the prospects of approval for its
Biologic License Application to the FDA for ROLVEDON in violation
of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act.
On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed
competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval
of counsel.
On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel
for the putative class.
On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging,
inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to
ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding
allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of,
clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class
Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021.
The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court.
On November 30, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
On February 6, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion to
dismiss and issued an order dismissing the lawsuit without
prejudice to the lead plaintiff's ability to replead their claims.
The lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint on March 29,
2024.
On May 13, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss that
further amended complaint.
On October 7, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Some of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and some claims
plaintiffs are permitted to replead. The parties will begin
engaging in discovery.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Shapiro Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Shapiro securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January
5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by
a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its
current and former executive officers made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the
likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on
Assertio's profitability in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").
On April 11, 2024, the court appointed Continental General
Insurance Company as the lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on June 10, 2024, that names as defendants
Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and Spectrum and certain of its former officers and
directors.
It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act between March 9, 2023 and January 3, 2024, and violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
proxy statement issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger.
The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024, and
the plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on October 10, 2024.
The defendants' reply brief is due on November 14, 2024.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS:Continues to Defend Edwards Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assertio 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Edwards securities
class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
Edwards v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0151. On February 19, 2024,
this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported shareholder, alleging that certain former officers and
directors of Spectrum breached their fiduciary duties in connection
the Spectrum Merger and that Guggenheim Securities LLC and Assertio
aided and abetted such fiduciary duty breaches.
The defendants moved to dismiss the Edwards complaint on June 29,
2024.
That motion is fully briefed.
The court will hear oral argument on the motion on January 7, 2025.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.
Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.assertiotx.com/-- is an
American specialty pharmaceutical company.[BN]
AURORA UNIVERSITY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. AURORA UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-08936 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 22, 2024) alleges that Aurora failed 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 in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting
discrimination against the blind.
Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.aurora.edu/,
including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, including, but
not limited to, https://athletics.aurora.edu/, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA and the RA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired
handicapped person and a member of a protected class of individuals
under the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. section 12102(1)-(2), and the
regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR section 36.101
et seq., the RA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL.
The Defendant operates the Aurora online retail store as well as
the Aurora interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks to Decertify Class in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order decertifying the class
previously certified in this case as to Bank of America and
JPMorgan.
The Bank of America and JPMorgan request oral argument on this
motion at a time and date convenient to the Court.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DFmfp9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
Paul S. Mishkin, Esq.
Sheila R. Adams James, Esq.
Patrick W. Blakemore, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 450-4800
E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com
paul.mishkin@davispolk.com
sheila.adams@davispolk.com
patrick.blakemore@davispolk.com
- and -
Alan C. Turner, Esq.
Rachel S. Sparks Bradley, Esq.
Abram J. Ellis, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000
Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
E-mail: aturner@stblaw.com
rachel.sparksbradley@stblaw.com
aellis@stblaw.com
BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Lyons Class Suit in Los Angeles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beachbody Company 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Lyons class suit in Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
On May 22, 2023, Jessica Lyons, an individual, and a group of other
plaintiffs filed a class action complaint with the Los Angeles
County Superior Court alleging that the Company misclassified its
Partners as contractors rather than as employees and committed
other violations of the California Labor Code.
The Company understands that the plaintiffs in this matter intend
on filing additional claims under the Private Attorney General Act
of 2004. The Company and certain executive officers are listed as
defendants in the complaint. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration in the
case.
The firm representing Ms. Lyons has also filed 13 arbitration
actions in Los Angeles County in anticipation that the Company's
motion to compel arbitration will be upheld.
All arbitration proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of
the mediation and follow-up discussions.
This matter is pending as of the date of this quarterly report.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believe they
are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend itself in this
action.
The Beachbody Company, Inc. is a subscription health and wellness
company and the creator of some of the world's most popular fitness
programs.
BEAUTY HEALTH CO: Continues to Defend Davalos Consumer Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beauty Health Co. 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 Davalos consumer class
suit in New York.
On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, and Sol Tan
Tanning & Spa LLC ("Class Action Plaintiffs"), individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial
Company and The Beauty Health Company (collectively, the "Class
Action Defendants") for alleged violations of New York consumer
fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of
implied warranties (the "Consumer Class Action").
The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning
& Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, and The
Beauty Health Company, Case No. 24-cv-8073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Caproni, J.)
The complaint alleges that all three versions of the Syndeo machine
(Syndeo 1.0, Syndeo 2.0, and Syndeo 3.0) were defective and did not
perform in the manner in which it had been represented by Class
Action Defendants.
Class Action Plaintiffs claim that Class Action Defendants made
various misrepresentations in its marketing and sales of the Syndeo
machines and, rather than provide a refund to customers for the
defective machines, replaced them with another Syndeo machine that
exhibited the same defects. Class Action Plaintiffs purport to
bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly
situated purchasers within the United States, of Class Action
Defendants' Syndeo machines. The complaint asserts five causes of
action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349, the state consumer
production statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350, the
state's false advertising statute; (3) breach of contract; (4)
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach
of the implied warranty of fitness.
The relief sought in the complaint includes monetary damages
allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of
the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants' alleged
violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages
award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., 349 and 350.
The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Consumer Class
Action have no merit and Class Action Defendants intend to
vigorously defend them.
Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and
beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the
company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a
dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and
infusion of facial serums.[BN]
BETTER TAX: Parties Seek to Vacate Scheduling Order in Pinn Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kelly Pinn, v. Better Tax
Relief, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00488-P (N.D. Tex.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting stipulation vacating the
current scheduling order and setting the following:
Event Old Date New Date
Motions for Leave to Join Parties Nov. 22, 2024 March 22,
2025
or Amend Pleadings:
Initial Expert Designation & Nov. 22, 2024 March 22,
2025
Report:
Dispositive Motions: March 24, 2025 July 24,
2025
Mediation: Jan. 22, 2025 May 22,
2025
Completion of Discovery: Feb. 21, 2025 June 21,
2025
Exchange of Exhibits: July 7, 2025 Nov. 7,
2025
Trial Date: July 21, 2025 Nov. 21,
2025
The Parties request that the Court vacate its scheduling order so
the parties can adequately prepare for mediation and, if mediation
is unsuccessful, continue with fact discovery and adequately
prepare for expert discovery and dispositive motions.
Better Tax provides professional tax relief services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hKBeed at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Parties are represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mount Carmel Avenue
Glenside, PA 19038
Telephone: (215) 225-5529
Facsimile: (888) 329-0305
E-mail: a@perronglaw.com
BEVERLY HILLS, CA: Class Cert Scheduling Entered in Greene
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IAN GREENE, et al., in
their Individual and Representative Capacities on Behalf of a Class
of All Persons similarly situated, v. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, et
al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05916-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fernando Olguin entered a scheduling and case management order
regarding class actions and representative actions:
-- Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses
and/or parties shall be lodged/filed no later than Feb. 24,
2025.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed no later than May 22,
2025.
-- All expert discovery shall be completed by Aug. 7, 2025.
-- The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures
no
later than June 5, 2025.
-- Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later
than
July 7, 2025.
-- The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a
private mediator no later than May 22, 2025.
-- Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than
Sept. 8, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under the
Local
Rules. Any untimely or non-conforming motion will be denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZLLZau at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG EASY: Case Management Order Entered in Dehart Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANOBIA DEHART,
individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Persons, v. BIG EASY FOODS OF LA, LLC, and GULF ISLAND SHRIMP AND
SEAFOOD II, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00242-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Darrel James Papillion entered a case management order
in advance of a class certification motion.
The Court vacates the previous amended scheduling order entered
Sept. 3, 2024, and establishes the following new deadlines in
advance of a class certification motion:
The Plaintiff shall identify all fact witnesses and expert
witnesses whose testimony she may use in support of her motion for
class certification by Jan. 31, 2025.
The Defendants shall identify all fact witnesses and expert
witnesses whose testimony they may use in opposition to Plaintiff's
motion for class certification by March 14, 2025.
The Parties' witnesses must be listed with specificity, including
the witness's name, address, and a statement of the general subject
matter of each witness’s testimony.
The Plaintiff shall produce expert reports that she may use in
support of her motion for class certification, as defined by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), by no later than
April 15, 2025.
The Defendants shall produce expert reports that they may use in
opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification, as
defined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), by no
later than May 15, 2025.
All class certification discovery to be conducted prior to
Plaintiff's motion for certification of a Rule 23 class shall be
completed by no later than July 15, 2025.
By Sept. 2, 2025, the Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class
Certification.
By Oct. 2, 2025, the Defendants shall file any Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
By Oct. 16, 2025, the Plaintiff shall file any Reply to Defendants'
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The class certification oral hearing is set for Nov. 20, 2025,
commencing at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Judge Darrel James
Papillion.
Big Easy offers a wide range of authentic Louisiana cuisine, from
sausages and boudin to gumbo and jambalaya.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MkSJQd at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIG EASY: Parties Seek OK of Proposed Case Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZANOLIA DEHART,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated
Persons, v. BIG EASY FOODS OF LA, LLC, and GULF ISLAND SHRIMP AND
SEAFOOD II, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00242-DJP-JVM (E.D. La.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter the parties' Proposed Case
Management Order in Advance of a Class Certification Motion.
The Plaintiff filed her "Class Action Petition for Damages" on
December 28, 2023, in state court, asserting only a federal claim
under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
("WARN") Act.
The Defendants removed the action to this Court on Jan. 25, 2024,
based on federal question subject matter jurisdiction.
On March 14, 2024, the Court entered its initial Scheduling Order,
which did not include any deadlines related to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On Aug. 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for extension
of deadlines set forth in the initial Scheduling Order.
Big Easy offers a wide range of authentic Louisiana cuisine, from
sausages and boudin to gumbo and jambalaya.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rgPLTk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence J. Centola, Esq.
Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
Jeremy Landry, Esq.
Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
338 Lafayette Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 581-9065
Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
srb@mbfirm.com
jjl@mbfirm.com
jzl@mbfirm.com
- and –
Damon J. Baldone, Esq.
DAMON J. BALDONE, APLC
162 New Orleans Boulevard
Houma, LA 70364
Telephone: (985) 868-3427
E-mail: dbaldone@hotmail.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas J. Gayle, Esq.
GAYLE LAW FIRM, LLC
713 Kirby Street
Lake Charles, LA 70601
Telephone: (337) 494-1220
Facsimile: (337) 494-1145
E-mail: tgayle@gaylelaw.com
- and –
Scott D. Huffstetler, Esq.
Erin L. Kilgore, Esq.
Chelsea G. Caswell, Esq.
Shearil S. Matthews, Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
400 Convention Street, Suite 700
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 387-0999
Facsimile: (225) 388-9133
E-mail: scott.huffstetler@keanmiller.com
erin.kilgore@keanmiller.com
chelsea.caswell@keanmiller.com
shearil.matthews@keanmiller.com
BLADE AIR MOBILITY: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Blade Air Mobility 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 Drulias class suit in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.
In February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to
the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. ("Old Blade")
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On April 16, 2024,
these cases were consolidated under the caption Drulias et al. v.
Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.) ("Drulias").
Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment claims against the former directors of Experience
Investment Corp. ("EIC" and such directors, the "EIC Directors"),
the former officers of EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC ("Sponsor"),
and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim against
Sponsor.
The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the
proxy statement related to the acquisition of Old Blade
insufficiently disclosed EIC's cash position, Old Blade's value
prospects and risks, and information related to Old Blade's chief
executive officer, who is also our current chief executive officer.
The consolidated complaints seeks, among other things, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing.
The Company believes that all claims in the lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against them.
Headquartered in New York, Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air
transportation and logistics for hospitals and passengers. [BN]
BLOOMBERG LP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Syeed Suit Due Feb. 18, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P. et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein entered an order that the due date for the
motion for class certification shall be Dec. 20, 2024.
-- Defendant's opposition: Feb. 18, 2025
-- Plaintiff's reply: March 18, 2025
Bloomberg L.P. is an American privately held financial, software,
data, and media company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTGVqM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christine E. Webber, Esq.
Rebecca A. Ojserkis, Esq.
Dana Busgang, Esq.
Donna H. Clancy, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com
BOLT BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Nesterenko Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bolt Biotherapeutics 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 Nesterenko securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
On July 2, 2024, a securities class action complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its directors and executive
officers (collectively, the "Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Nesterenko v. Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. et al., Case No.
3:24-cv-03985 , purportedly on behalf of a class of individuals who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 5, 2021 and May 14, 2024.
The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On October 3, 2024, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, appointed
lead plaintiff's counsel, and ordered the parties to submit a
proposed briefing schedule for the filing of an amended complaint
and the Company's response thereto, which the parties submitted on
October 23, 2024.
The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.
Bolt Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of immunotherapies for the
treatment of cancer.[BN]
BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Newton Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighthouse Life Insurance Co. 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
Company continues to defend itself from the Newton class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division.
Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
filed May 8, 2020). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action
lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, a subsidiary of
Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued
by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life
Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all
persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the
terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other
things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be
increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year.
Plaintiff also alleges that cost of insurance charges were based on
improper factors and should have decreased over time due to
improving mortality but did not.
Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach
of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of
the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages,
interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in
June 2020, which was granted in part and denied in part in March
2021.
Plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint. On January 18,
2023, Plaintiff filed a motion on consent to amend the second
amended class action complaint to narrow the scope of the class
sought to those who own or owned policies issued in Georgia; the
motion was granted on January 23, 2023, and the third amended class
action complaint was filed on January 23, 2023.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the
United States.
BROOGE ENERGY: Continues to Defend White Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brooge Energy Limited disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 11, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the White class suit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
On February 5, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
by Eric White against Brooge Energy Limited. The class action
complaint contains substantial allegations concerning the
materially false and misleading statements issued during the class
period similar to those addressed in the Order Instituting Cease
and Desist Proceedings, Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Making Findings, And Imposing Cease-And-Desist Orders entered by
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on December
22, 2023 In The Matter of Brooge Energy Limited.
The Management believes that the Group’s exposure to this lawsuit
is not material.
Accordingly, no provisions have been made related to this lawsuit
in these consolidated financial statements.
Headquartered in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Brooge operates
through its subsidiary, Brooge Petroleum and Gas Investment Company
FZE, which was formed under the laws of the Fujairah Free Zone,
United Arab Emirates, and conducts its business out of an oil
storage facility in Fujairah, United Arab Emirates. Brooge common
shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol
"BROG".
BUFFALO EXCHANGE: Bryant Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELANEY BRYANT, BRIANNA
LEMMON, and VIOLET OSPINA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. BUFFALO EXCHANGE, LTD., Case No.
1:23-cv-08286-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter
an order:
(1) certifying the proposed class pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
(2) appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
(3) appointing Outten & Golden LLP as Class Counsel, pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. 23(g); and
(4) directing the parties to confer regarding an appropriate
notice
for the class and submit a stipulation regarding the notice,
or
a letter detailing any disputes, within 30 days of the
Court's
Order.
Buffalo Exchange was founded in 1974. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of women's ready-to-wear
clothing.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nr2UkD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
Michael C. Danna, Esq.
Amy Maurer, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com
mdanna@outtengolden.com
amaurer@outtengolden.com
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY: Fisk Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL
CASTRO, GRETA CASTRILLON, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN
BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN
HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN,
ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(c) certifying the following (the "Classes"):
1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(2),
the following class (the "Injunctive Relief Class"):
"All female students who participate or, since Feb. 7, 2022,
participated in intercollegiate varsity athletics at San
Diego
State University."
2. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3),
the following class (the "Retaliation Class"):
"All female students who participated in intercollegiate
varsity
athletics at San Diego State University from the 2018-2019
academic year to the present."
3. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3),
the following class (the "Athletic Financial Aid Class"):
"All female students who participated in intercollegiate
varsity
athletics at San Diego State University from the 2018-2019
academic year to the present and did not receive all of the
athletic financial aid they could have received."
4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to appoint the following as class
representatives:
i. For the Injunctive Relief Class: Plaintiffs Carina
Clark
and Kaitlin Heri; and
ii. For the Retaliation Class and the Athletic Financial
Aid
Class: Plaintiffs Madison Fisk, Carina Clark, Natalie
Figueroa, Kaitlin Heri, Olivia Petrine, and Kamryn
Whitworth.
5. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) and
23(g),
Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to appoint as class
counsel: Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.; Casey Gerry Schenk
Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield, LLP; and Haeggquist & Eck, LLP.
6. The bases for Plaintiffs' Motion are set forth in the
accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the
Declarations of Arthur H. Bryant and Olivia Petrine, and the
expert report of Dr. Donna Lopiano with the exhibits and
appendices attached thereto.
Board of Trustees governs the diverse and complex 23-campus system
by developing broad administrative policy for the campuses.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ndCB1i at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK
FRANCAVILLA BLATT &
PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
- and -
Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Neda Saghafi, Esq.
Carey Alexander, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: abryant@clarksonlawfirm.com
nsaghafi@clarksonlawfirm.com
calexander@clarksonlawfirm.co
- and -
Amber Eck, Esq.
Jenna Rangel, Esq.
HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
225 Broadway, Ste 2050
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 342-8000
E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
jennar@haelaw.com
CAMBIUM NETWORKS: Continues to Defend Hamby Shareholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cambium Networks 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 12, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Hamby shareholder class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois.
On May 22, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois (Hamby v. Cambium Networks Corporation et al, Case No.
1:24-cv-04240) against the Company and three of its current or
former officers. The complaint purports to assert claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of persons and
entities who acquired its ordinary shares between May 8, 2023 and
January 18, 2024, or the Class Period. The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Company and certain of its executive
officers made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and
prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.
On July 22, 2024, motions were filed on behalf of purported class
member shareholders seeking to serve as lead plaintiff.
On October 21, 2024, the court approved the appointment of a lead
plaintiff, an amended complaint is expected to be filed by December
4, 2024.
This litigation is in its early stages and the Company cannot
currently estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
that it may experience in connection with this claim.
Headquartered in Rolling Meadows, IL, Cambium engages in the
design, development, and manufacture of wireless broadband and
Wi-Fi networking infrastructure solutions. The company's ordinary
shares trade on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol "CMBM." [BN]
CARBON HEALTH: Class Certification Bid in Aubin Due Sept. 3, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIENNE ST. AUBIN, v.
CARBON HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00667-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered a scheduling order as
follows:
Event Deadline
Deadline to add parties or amend the Aug. 4, 2025
Pleadings:
Class certification motion and Plaintiffs' Sept. 3, 2025
class certification expert disclosures due:
Deadline to complete discovery of Plaintiffs' Oct. 3, 2025
class certification experts:
Class certification opposition and Defendant's Oct. 31, 2025
class certification expert disclosures due:
Deadline to complete discovery of Defendant's Dec. 5, 2025
class certification experts:
Class certification reply due: Jan. 9, 2026
Carbon Health is a modern health chain that provides urgent and
primary care.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3819bA at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARGROUP HOLDINGS: Steahle Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN STEAHLE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. CARGROUP HOLDINGS,
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01447-MMB (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective;
2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the
Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and
text-message) to:
"All Sales Representatives, Territorial Sales
Representatives,
Branch Managers, Senior Branch Managers, and Assistant Area
Managers who worked for CarGroup Holdings, LLC, anywhere in
the
United States any time from April 8, 2021, through the final
disposition of this matter."
3. Approving the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
judicial
Notice and reminder Notice attached as Exhibit 6;
4. Approving the schedule indicated in Exhibit 5;
5. Approving a Reminder Email and text message to be sent to the
Putative Collective Members halfway through the 60-day notice
period;
6. Allowing Putative Collective Members to execute electronic
consent forms;
Cargroup operates as a car dealer.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x2yzAY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
S. Cody Reinberg, Esq.
Stephanie L. Solomon, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
7382 Pershing Ave., 1W
St. Louis, MO 63130
Telephone: (314) 391-9557
Facsimile: (314) 391-9557
E-mail: creinberg@hkm.com
ssolomon@hkm.com
CARLOTZ INC: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned RE CARLOTZ, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05906-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
asks the Court to enter an order granting requests for an extension
of the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification (including his brief in support of the motion and
supporting expert report) for two weeks—i.e., from Nov. 29, 2024,
to Dec. 13, 2024. The Individual Defendants consent to this
request.
This is Lead Plaintiff's first request for an extension of the
class certification deadline. This extension would not impact any
other deadlines in the schedule.
All Parties, as well as CarLotz' successor, the Trustee in
Bankruptcy for Shift Technologies, Inc., have approved a term sheet
setting forth all material terms associated with the proposed
settlement. Nevertheless, before the Parties execute the term
sheet, they await approval by various carriers for the Individual
Defendants, which Counsel for the Individual Defendants expects in
the coming days.
It is the Parties' intention to inform the Court they have executed
a final term sheet as soon as possible. At that time, the Parties
expect to propose a prompt deadline thereafter by which Lead
Plaintiff will file a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which will include as an exhibit the Parties'
stipulation of settlement. We thank the Court for its consideration
of this request and stand ready to provide further information as
directed.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4hQUh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kim E. Miller, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (504) 455-1400
Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com
CATERPILLAR INC: Discovery Plan Must Include Class Cert Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dickerson v. Caterpillar
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01449 (C.D. Ill., Filed Nov. 7,
2024), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order that if
the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the proposed
discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a motion to
certify class at a stage early in the case.
-- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system
within
the other Documents category.
-- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order
attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning
meeting.
The nature of suit states Torts - Personal Injury - Motor
Vehicle.[CC]
CENTRAL BANK: Rutherford Seeks to Certify National Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL C. RUTHERFORD III,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. CENTRAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY, Case No. 3:24-cv-05299-TLF (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
the following national class to resolve claims under the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act:
"All persons in the United States who, at any time since April
17,
2023, were: (1) taken into custody at a jail correctional
facility, detainment center, or any other law enforcement
facility; (2) entitled to the return of money either
confiscated
from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts when they
were
released from the facility, which was loaded or otherwise
transferred to a prepaid debit card without their permission;
(3)
issued that prepaid debit card by Central Bank of Kansas City
to
pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or other charges
on
such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and receive an
individual monetary recovery from the case captioned Brown v.
Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District Court for
the
District or Oregon, Case No. 3:15-cv-01370-MO."
The Plaintiff also requests that the court certify the following
Washington subclass ("Washington Subclass") to resolve claims (1)
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, et. seq.,
(2) for conversion, and (3) for unjust enrichment:
"All persons who, at any time since April 17, 2020, were: (1)
taken into custody at a jail correctional facility, detainment
center, or any other law enforcement facility located in the
state
of Washington; (2) entitled to the return of money either
confiscated from them and/or remaining in their inmate accounts
when they were released from the facility, which was loaded or
otherwise transferred to a prepaid debit card without their
permission; (3) issued that prepaid debit card by Central Bank
of
Kansas City to pay the money owed to them; (4) incurred fees or
other charges on such card(s); and (5) did not file a claim and
receive an individual monetary recovery from the case captioned
Brown v. Stored Value Cards, et al., United States District
Court
for the District of Oregon, Case No. 3:15-cv-01370- MO."
The Plaintiff further requests that this court deem him an adequate
representative of the Class and Washington Subclass and appoint
Chris R. Youtz, Richard E. Spoonemore, and Sirianni Youtz
Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC as counsel for both classes. As shown
below, the Plaintiff satisfies the four prerequisites of FRCP 23(a)
and the predominance and superiority requirements of FRCP
23(b)(3).
Central Bank is a local community bank that has provided financial
services for individuals and businesses since 1951.
A copy the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 15, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MJxcU9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Youtz, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ
SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
E-mail: chris@sylaw.com
rick@sylaw.com
ele@sylaw.com
CERES CLASSIC: Continues to Defend Philadelphia Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres Classic L.P. 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 City of Philadelphia
antitrust class suit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The Company is a defendant in three antitrust class action
complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the
United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of
Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Company, along with a
number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S.
antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged
efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate
Demand Obligations (“VRDO”).
Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, treble damages. The class
action complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal
issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent.
On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint,
dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S.
antitrust claims.
On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for
class certification.
On October 5, 2023, defendants petitioned the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that
decision, which was granted on February 5, 2024.
Ceres Classic L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership organized in
1998 to engage primarily in the speculative trading of futures
contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, forward
contracts on physical commodities and other commodity interests,
including, but not limited to, foreign currencies, financial
instruments, metals, energy and agricultural products.
CF MEDICAL: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Rachau Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RACHAU, individually and all others similarly situated v.
CF MEDICAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04609-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Oct. 10,
2024) sues the Defendant for unauthorized disclosure of the
confidential personal information, Personally Identifying
Information1 of the Plaintiff and approximately 626,396 proposed
Class Members via a February 2024 cyber-attack.
The Defendant's failure to properly supervise its agent and ensure
its agent implement reasonable, industry standard cybersecurity
safeguards was negligent at best and likely represents a reckless
disregard for the Plaintiff's and proposed Class Members legal
rights. The compromised information includes the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names and Social Security numbers, the Plaintiff
contends.
On September 26, 2024, the Defendant notified Plaintiff that his
information was affected by the Data Breach.
According to the Defendant, the cybercriminals infiltrated the
information systems at least between Feb. 14, 2024, and Feb. 26,
2024, when the debt collection company finally realized what was
happening. Because of the Data Breach, the uncertainty that it has
caused, and because of the significant invasion of Plaintiff's
privacy, the Plaintiff has and continues to suffer anxiety and
stress, the suit asserts.
Subsequent to the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered numerous,
substantial injuries including invasion of privacy; theft of his
PII; lost or diminished value of PII and PHI; lost time and
opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual
consequences of the Data Breach; lost opportunity costs associated
with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data
Breach; statutory damages; nominal damages; and the continued and
certainly increased risk to his PII, added the suit.
CF Medical operates under the name "Capio" and "serves over 1,000
healthcare clients."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
ALONSO & WIRTH
1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 303
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 928-4472
E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
dwirth@alonsowirth.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
CHECKPOINT THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The Company and James Oliviero have been named as defendants in a
consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Court"), which was filed on April 5, 2024. The action
is styled In re Checkpoint Therapeutics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-02613-PAE (the "Securities Class Action").
On June 21, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff for the
putative class and approved his choice of lead counsel.
The lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") on August 23, 2024, which alleges that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making false and misleading statements and omissions, and that
James Oliviero is named as a control person under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.
The Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between March 10,
2021, and December 15, 2023, and seeks, among other things,
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on October 23,
2024.
The Company believes that the allegations in the Securities Class
Action is without merit and intends to defend itself and its
directors and executive officers vigorously.
Checkpoint acquires, develops, and commercializes novel skin-cancer
treatments.
CHRIS REYKDAL: Class Settlement in N.D. Suit Gets Initial No
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.D., et al., v. CHRIS
REYKDAL, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01621-LK-MLP (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed third motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement and for certification of settlement class.
1. The Court provisionally certifies the following Class for
purpose of settlement:
"All students who were exited from special education services
due to age before their 22nd birthday between Nov. 11, 2020
and
the present.
2. For the reasons set forth above, the Class satisfies the four
prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)
(numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy).
3. For the reasons set forth above, the Class also satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
4. The Court appoints E.A. and N.D., by and through their
respective guardians, as Class Representatives.
5. The Court appoints Susman Godfrey LLP and Cedar Law PLLC as
Class Counsel.
6. The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement and
the terms set forth therein.
7. The Court preliminarily approves the (1) reimbursement to the
guardians of E.A. for up to $60,000 in documented expenses
incurred to provide him with private educational and related
support services since he was exited from the Selah School
District, and (2) reimbursement or direct payment to the
guardians of N.D. for up to $150,000 in documented expenses
for
educational services.
8. The Court preliminarily approves the attorney's fees and
costs
payment of $440,000.
9. The Court approves the form and content of the proposed
notices
substantially in the form attached as Exhibits A and B to the
Settlement Agreement, and Orders OSPI to provide notice as
set
forth herein and in the Settlement Agreement.
10. No later than five (5) business days after entry of this
Order,
OSPI shall cause notice to be delivered in the manner set
forth
in the Settlement Agreement to all Class Members, publish the
notice of the proposed class action settlement on OSPI's
website
and in its regular bulletins, and send the same publication
notice to the organizations listed in the Settlement
Agreement.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GFd8PB at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLUMBUS LIFE: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Young Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM H. YOUNG, v.
COLUMBUS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:22-cv-00553-JPH (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered an order granting
motion to modify scheduling order:
1. Deadline for motions to amend pleadings and/or add parties:
28
days after ruling on CLIC's motion to dismiss Following these
dates, motions directed to pleadings and amendment to
pleadings
may be made only upon leave of Court, with notice to opposing
counsel.
2. Required disclosures under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), without
limitations: 28 days after deadline for motions to amend
pleadings and/or add parties
3. Disclosure of lay witnesses: 9 months after ruling on
CLIC’s
motion to dismiss
4. Plaintiff's expert report(s) and designation(s): 42 days
after
deadline for disclosure of lay witnesses
5. Defendant's expert report(s) and designation(s): 42 days
after
deadline for Plaintiff's expert report(s) and designation(s)
6. Rebuttal expert report(s) and designation(s): 42 days after
deadline for Defendant's expert report(s) and designation(s)
7. Telephone status conference to discuss settlement
negotiations
and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms: 21 days after
deadline for rebuttal expert report(s) and designation(s)
8. Deadline for discovery: 14 days after telephone status
conference to discuss settlement negotiations and alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms
9. Briefing on Class Certification:
a. Motion for Class Certification: 14 days after deadline for
discovery
b. Opposition: 42 days after deadline for motion for class
certification
c. Reply: 28 days after deadline for opposition to class
certification
10. Dispositive motion deadline: To be determined Motions for
summary judgment shall not be filed before the close of
discovery without leave of Court. See Standing Order
Governing
Civil Cases.
11. Final Pretrial Conference: To be determined
Columbus Life offers annuities and life insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xw5vKM at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. COMERICA BANK, a
foreign corporation, and CONDUENT STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a
foreign corporation, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court for class certification on Jan. 23,
2025.
The proposed Class and Sub-Classes are defined as follows:
-- Class:
"All persons issued a California Way2Go Card (TM) Prepaid
Mastercard (TM) who through the date of class certification (1)
notified Defendants that one or more charges on their account
were
unauthorized; (2) were denied reimbursement with a denial
letter
identified in Defendants' systems by the letter code
FRD7-GO-Deny-
Conflicting Info or FRD7-EP-Deny-Conflicting Info and dated on
or
after April 27, 2019; and (3) for whom Conduent's records do
not
reflect indicia of first party fraud or a dispute over
the quality of a good or service."
-- EFTA Sub-Class:
"All persons in the Class (1) whose claims were denied on or
after
April 27, 2022, and (2) whose denial was with regard to a
disputed
charge (or charges) totaling more than $50."
-- Lost or Stolen Card Sub-Class:
"All persons in the Class who, according to Defendants'
records,
reported their California Way2Go Card (RTM) Prepaid Mastercard
(RTM) lost or stolen to Defendants."
The Class, EFTA Sub-Class, and Lost or Stolen Card Sub-Class
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Plaintiff Sparkman is one of many California child support
recipients who receives court-ordered payments on the Way2Go
prepaid debit card issued by Defendant Comerica Bank.
Comerica offers saving and current account, investment, financial
services, online banking, and loan facilities.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x0KauG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
Amanda M. Steiner, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Telephone: (206) 816-6603
Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com
asteiner@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
Sophia M. Rios, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Telephone: (619) 489-0300
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: srios@bm.net
- and -
Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq.
SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP
80 Broad Street, Suite 1301
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 500-6114
Facsimile: (646) 612-7996
E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Miller Suit Removed from State Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Constar Financial
Services, LLC, Case No. 815047-2024E, was removed from the State
Court-Supreme, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on Oct. 18, 2024.
The Southern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-07944-RA to the proceeding.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Ronnie Abrams.
Constar Financial is a business process outsourcing firm.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brendan Hoffman Little, Esq.
LIPPES MATHIAS LLP
50 Fountain Plaza, Suite 1700
Buffalo, NY 14202
Telephone: (716) 853-5100
E-mail: blittle@lippes.com
CONTANGO RESOURCES: Class Cert. Filing Extended to Nov. 21, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RISING PHOENIX ROYALTY
FUND III, LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC; and CONTANGO RESOURCES, INC.,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00238-KHR (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott
Klosterman entered an order granting joint motion to extend
scheduling order deadlines:
Event Deadline
Fact Discovery for Class Certification June 6, 2025
Discovery Deadline (not including
expert discovery):
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Expert Disclosures July 9, 2025
for Class Certification, including
Expert Report(s) (not filed of record):
Defendants' Rule 26 Expert Disclosures for Sept. 18, 2025
Class Certification, including Expert
Report(s) (not filed of record):
Plaintiff's Rule 26 Rebuttal Expert Oct. 20, 2025
Disclosures for Class Certification,
including Rebuttal Expert Report(s)
(not filed of record):
Private Mediation Deadline: Oct. 28, 2025
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: Nov. 21, 2025
Defendants' Class Certification Response: Dec. 31, 2025
Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply: Jan. 30, 2026
In Person Class Certification Hearing: Feb. 18, 2026
Contango Resources is engaged in the exploration, development,
exploitation, and acquisition of crude oil and natural gas
properties.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SocEcz at no extra
charge.[CC]
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands 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 a securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware alleging that the Company's disclosures issued in
connection with the Merger were materially misleading in violation
of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The complaint is captioned Water Island Merger Arbitrage
Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building
Brands et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.).
The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and officers
issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve
the Merger at an unfair price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expenses, and
costs.
On December 8, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint, and, in the alternative, to stay the litigation. On
September 30, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss without prejudice. On October 15, 2024, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these claims.
The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome
of this matter or determine the extent of any potential
liabilities. The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss. The Company does not believe, based
on currently available information, that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition.
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. is a holding company based in
North Carolina.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Costan Sues Over Mislabeled Fish Oil Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONNA COSTAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02156-JO-AHG (S.D. Cal., Nov. 18, 2024) alleges
that the Defendant mislabeled its Kirkland Signature Fish Oil
products (the "Products") as containing heart health benefits.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, that the
representations of the Defendant that the Products are healthy to
the heard are false and misleading because the Products' Omega-3s
do not support heart health, instead could even harm heart health.
Specifically, the Products do not reduce the risk of heart disease
or adverse cardiovascular events, including heart attacks, strokes,
unstable angina, arrhythmias, heart failure, or death from coronary
heart disease, nor do they improve homocysteine levels, a marker of
heart health. Indeed, the Products can actually harm heart health
by increasing the risk of atrial fibrillation, says the suit.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is a membership warehouse club The
Company sells all kinds of food, automotive supplies, toys,
hardware, sporting goods, jewelry, electronics, apparel, health,
and beauty aids, as well as other goods. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq.
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
Joshua Nassir, Esq.
Katherine Phillips, Esq.
TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP
3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone: (310) 751-5948
Email: rglezakos@treehouselaw.com
bheikali@treehouselaw.com
jnassir@treehouselaw.com
kphillips@treehouselaw.com
CREDIT ONE: Aslani Case Remanded to Kings County Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as POOYAN ASLANI, v. CREDIT
ONE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-06985-AMD-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ann Donnelly entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.
-- The case is remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Kings County.
-- Because the defendant has not demonstrated that this lawsuit
raises an actual case or controversy on the plaintiff's sole
federal cause of action, the Court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. And because the Court does not
have
subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case.
-- On Sept. 8, 2024, the plaintiff filed this action in New York
State Supreme Court under index number 524320/2024. In general,
the plaintiff alleges that the defendant improperly charged and
mishandled his credit account.
Credit One is a bank specializing in credit cards for borrowers
with low credit scores.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EubJJf at no extra
charge.[CC]
CVS HEALTH: Gonzalez Alleges Mass Layoff Without Prior Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; and CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-08156 (N.D. Cal., Nov.
19, 2024) alleges violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("Warn Act"), the Plaintiff seeks to recover from
the Defendant up to 60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the
Warn Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide 60
days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees without
cause in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees
in a plant closing. The Plaintiff and the Class that were
terminated constituted mass layoffs and a plant closing without the
60 days' notice in direct violation of the Warn Act, says the
suit.
CVS Health Corporation provides health care and retail pharmacy
services. The Company offers prescription medications, beauty,
personal care, cosmetics, and health care products, as well as
pharmacy benefit management (PBM), disease management, and
administrative services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Lohr, Esq.
LOHR RIPAMONTI LLP
140 Geary Street, 7F
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 683-7947
Facsimile: (415) 683-7267
Email: jason.lohr@lrllp.com
CVS PHARMACY: Bid to Dismiss Newport First Amended Complaint Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMY NEWPORT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CVS PHARMACY,
INC., et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-00252-HEA (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Henry Edward Autrey entered an order denying CVS motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
The Court further entered an order that consistent with Plaintiff's
representations in her Response in Opposition to CVS Pharmacy,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, the Court DISMISSES Counts I, II, and III
of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
Amy Newport alleges in her First Amended Complaint (hereinafter
"Complaint") that Defendants have misled consumers into believing
that certain over-the-counter ("OTC") cough and flu medicines are
"Non-Drowsy."
The Defendants market and sell CVS branded cough and flu medicines
that are labeled "Non-Drowsy."
The Plaintiff alleges that these CVS-branded medicines contain
dextromethorphan hydrobromide ("DXM"), which she contends is
scientifically proven to cause drowsiness.
CVS distributes pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=43teQM at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVE JEPPESEN: Sheduling Order Amended in Rossow Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEEVA ROSSOW, v. DAVE
JEPPESEN, Director, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, in his
official capacity, Case No. 1:23-cv-00131-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon.
Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order amending the scheduling
order as follows.
1. The deadline set forth in paragraph 3 is amended such that
the
parties must complete ADR no later than 90 days after the
Court's resolution of both the plaintiff's motion to amend
and
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
2. Paragraph 6 is amended to include the following at the end of
the paragraph: "Provided, however, that the parties may
complete
the following six depositions by Plaintiff Rossow and one
deposition by Defendant Director no later than Monday Dec.
16,
2024.
-- Misty Myatt (Plaintiff)
-- Roxanne Printz (Plaintiff)
-- Andie Blackwood (Plaintiff)
-- Ashley Burke (Plaintiff)
-- Julie Sevcik (Plaintiff)
-- Fernando Castro (Plaintiff)
-- Keeva Rossow (Defendant)
3. All other deadlines not mentioned in this order remain
unchanged.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wEBUZ7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
DENALI WATER: Spinas Sues Over Noxious Fumes from Storage Lagoon
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE SPINAS; RCB MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a River City Bistro, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. DENALI WATER
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 17CV-24-734 (Ark. Cir., Oct. 18, 2024) is
an action brought against the Defendant for the creation of a
noxious and harmful nuisance, trespass, negligence, and economic
losses that the noxious fumes have caused that have created a
nuisance beginning in Crawford County, Arkansas and extending into
Sebastian County, Arkansas and perhaps other areas.
This lawsuit is filed on behalf of the named Plaintiffs, and all
those citizens and/or residents and/or property owners of the State
of Arkansas who are affected by the noxious fumes emanating from a
storage lagoon used to store organic residuals ("Storage Lagoon")
being operated by the Defendant.
This Storage Lagoon, intended for the temporary storage of
byproducts from food processing and other industries, has been a
significant source of noxious odors that have adversely affected
residents and property owners throughout the River Valley. Since
approximately August 2024, these persistent and overwhelming fumes
have permeated Fort Smith and the surrounding areas, creating an
intolerable environment for the community.
This action seeks injunctive relief requiring Denali Water
Solutions LLC to cease all operations at the subject Storage Lagoon
until it is properly closed and remediated to eliminate the noxious
odors and harmful emissions affecting the Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated persons.
As a direct result of the noxious odors emanating from the subject
Storage Lagoon, the Plaintiff and others similarly situated have
suffered a significant loss of enjoyment of his property and other
damages, the suit asserts.
Plaintiff RCB Management heavily relies on outdoor dining as a
vital aspect of its business model. However, the persistent odors
from the Storage Lagoon have deterred patrons from utilizing the
outdoor patio, leading to a noticeable decline in customer traffic.
Numerous customers have lodged complaints about the unpleasant
smell, further impacting the Bistro's ability to attract and retain
business.
Denali operates a storage lagoon or lagoons for organic residuals
in Crawford County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joey McCutchen, Esq.
Stephen Napurano, Esq.
MCCUTCHEN NAPURANO – THE LAW FIRM
Fort Smith, AR 72902
Telephone: (479) 783-0036
Facsimile: (479) 783-5168
- and -
Chip Sexton, Esq.
SEXTON & MASRI LAW FIRM
605 S 21st Street
Fort Smith, AR 72901
DENCO CONSTRUCTION: Perez Seeks Conditional Cert of Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILMAR PEREZ and RUBY
ORANTES, v. DENCO CONSTRUCTION LLC. and BRUCE RAHMAN, individually,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02766-NRN (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:
1. Conditionally certifying case to proceed as a "collective
Action" under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and define the class
as
"All construction workers worked on or after Oct. 7, 2021 who
worked for Defendants";
2. Approving the Notice and Consent to Join form;
3. Directing Plaintiffs to deliver the Notice and Consent to
Join
form to all potential collective action members via
first-class
U.S. Mail;
4. Directing the Defendants to post the Notice and Consent to
Join
form, in English and Spanish, in conspicuous places in their
place of business for a period of 60 days;
5. Directing Defendants to include a copy of the Notice and
Consent
to Join form, in English and Spanish, in two consecutive pay
envelopes of all putative collective action members currently
employed by the Defendants;
6. Directing to produce the names, addresses and dates
of employment of all potential class members within 14 days
of
the Court's order so that Plaintiffs may disseminate the
Notice
and Consent to Join form in a timely fashion; and
7. Directing the putative class members shall have 60 days from
the date the Plaintiffs disseminates the Notice in which to
opt-
in to the action.
For years, Denco would require their employees (construction
workers) to clock in and clock out with two separate time cards.
The
first-time card would be for the first 40 hours worked and the
second time card would be for work performed after 40 hours.
To further this scheme, the Defendants allegedly would pay their
employees with two separate pay checks. The first paycheck was from
Denco and had withholdings. The second paycheck did not have
withholdings and would be from either a fictitious company or a
personal check.
After the Plaintiff Wilmar Perez sent Defendants a demand letter,
Defendants ceased their unlawful actions. Specifically, rather than
continue to violate the law Denco decided to stop requiring their
employees to work overtime.
Denco is a full service General Contracting firm specializing in
the underground sector.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sQknhD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
250 Broadway, Suite 600
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
DENVER, CO: Walter Seeks to Conditionally Certify Class of Recruits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE WALTER, and all
others similarly situated, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Case No.
1:24-cv-01947-GPG-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) Conditionally certifying the Conditional Class of collective
Plaintiffs defined as :
"All recruits who attended training at the Fire Academy
operated by the City and County of Denver Fire Department
between July 15, 2021, and July 15, 2024, including the
following Fire Academy Classes:
a. Recruit Class 21-02;
b. Recruit Class 22-01;
c. Recruit Class 22-02;
d. Recruit Class 23-01;
e. Lateral Recruit Class 23-02;
f. Recruit Class 23-03; and
g. Recruit Class 24-01";
(2) Approving the attached "Notice of Collective Action" and
"Plaintiff's Consent Form";
(3) Approving the opt-in procedure set out in Paragraph 7
herein
and directing the parties to comply with each component
thereof; and
(4) Tolling the limitations period such that any consent forms
filed by Plaintiffs' counsel within 30 days after the close
of
the opt in period, but after July 15, 2024, the date the
Complaint and initial consent form were filed in this case,
shall be deemed to have been filed as of July 15, 2024.
The parties agree and acknowledge that nothing in this Motion
stands for, nor will be construed to stand for, the position that
Defendant has admitted any wrongdoing. Indeed, Defendant denies
that it has violated the FLSA in any way, or that it willfully
violated the FLSA.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QGPwCu at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Pierce, Esq.
Alex Behn, Esq.
Margaret Angelucci, Esq.
ASHER, GITTLER, & D’ALBA, Ltd.
200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-1500
Facsimile: (312) 263-1520
E-mail: mjp@ulaw.com
ajb@ulaw.com
maa@ulaw.com
DILIGENT SERVICES: Ramey Sues Over Data Security Incident
---------------------------------------------------------
Breanna Ramey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DILIGENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS,
DILIGENT ACQUISITIONS, LLC d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS and
DILIGENT HEALTH, LLC d/b/a DILIGENT DELIVERY SYSTEMS, Case
4:24-cv-04575 (S.D. Tex., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought arises out of
the recent data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in
its possession certain personally identifiable information ("PII"
or the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and
former employees of Defendant, the putative class members
("Class").
The Plaintiff brought this action to address Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that it
collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their
information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown
third party and precisely what type of information was accessed.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on
Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to
cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the
Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's
and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to
Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take
steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks
left that property in a dangerous condition.
The Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and
reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably
available steps to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided Defendant with her sensitive PII as a
condition of her employment with Defendant as a source driver.
Diligent Delivery Systems is a nationwide transportation, shipping
and logistics service provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, Texas 77006
Phone: (888) 350-3931
Fax: (888) 276-3455
Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Modify Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MORGAN, et al., v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:10-cv-01511-RJL (D.D.C.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order modifying the briefing
schedule for the Plaintiffs' third renewed motion for class
certification.
The District seeks to modify the deadlines for its opposition and
Plaintiffs' reply. The District seeks to extend the deadline for
its opposition from Nov. 22, 2024, to Dec. 6, 2024, and for
Plaintiffs' reply from Dec. 16, 2024, to January 13, 2025.
The Parties have conferred as required by Local Rule 7(m), and
Plaintiffs consent to this modification. This is the District's
second request to modify the current scheduling order. The proposed
modification will not affect any other deadlines in the scheduling
order.
District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River,
bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tVpuq3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is 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, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION, EQUITY SECTION
Honey Morton, Esq.
ASSISTANT CHIEF, EQUITY SECTION
Gregory Ketcham-Colwill, Esq.
Adam Daniel, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION
400 6th Street, N.W. Suite 10100
Washington, DC 20001
E-mail: gregory.ketcham-colwill@dc.gov
DOLLAR BUDGET: Henrriquez Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Henrriquez, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. DOLLAR BUDGET, INC, d/b/a 99
CENTS VILLAGE, and DOLLAR VILLAGE, INC, d/b/a 99 CENTS VILLAGE, and
MUHAMMED IRFAN, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-08066 (E.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 20, 2024), is brought under the overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay overtime
wages.
The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the overtime wages lawfully
due to her under the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as at least at the
minimum wage rate that the NYLL requires for all hours of work.
Specifically, throughout most of her employment as detailed below,
Defendants routinely required Plaintiff to work, and Plaintiff did
work, beyond forty hours each week, or virtually each week, yet
Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat weekly rate regardless of the
amount of hours that she worked that did not include overtime
premiums at the statutorily required rate of one and one-half times
her regular rate, or one and one-half times the minimum wage rate,
if greater, for all of the hours that Plaintiff worked over forty
in a week. Moreover, when dividing Plaintiff's total weekly pay by
her total hours worked, Plaintiff's effective rate of pay fell
below the minimum wage rate that the NYLL requires for each hour
worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from May 2019 until March 15,
2024, as a line organizer, performing tasks primarily focused on
organizing and stocking products in the aisles of the store.
The Defendants are two New York corporations that together comprise
a single-integrated enterprise that operates a general merchandise
and retail store located in Queens Village, New York, as well as
the enterprise's owner and day-to-day overseer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Philip J. Maldari, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 248-5550
Fax: (516) 248 6027
DORAL CENTRE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-----------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. DORAL CENTRE ASSOCIATES LTD, CAPRICCIO
INC D/B/A CAPRICCIO KITCHEN AND CATERING, ROTIR GROUP LLC D/B/A LA
TREMENDA CASA DE ASADOS and TESLAM GROUP LLC D/B/A SHAWARMA XPRESS,
Case No. 1:24-cv-24562-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 19, 2024), is brought
for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a
result of the Defendant's discrimination 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 restaurant and bar
business within the commercial property.
Although over 33 years has passed since the effective date of Title
III of the ADA, Defendant has yet to make its/their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located
within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The
Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial
property and commercial restaurant business located within the
commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of
the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject places of public accommodation.
The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial property and
commercial restaurant business have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit these places of public accommodation
and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The
barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
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, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
DORAL CENTRE ASSOCIATES LTD, owned and continues to own a
commercial plaza property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
EATON CORPORATION: Scheduling Order Entered in Schlesinger
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOB SCHLESINGER, et al.,
v. EATON CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00157-RWS (N.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Richard Story entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. Plaintiffs serve discovery requests within 14 days to obtain
information necessary to amend their Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs file a motion for leave to amend their Complaint
within 21 days of Defendant’s responses to their discovery
requests.
3. All pending discovery requests that have been served by the
parties are stayed consistent with the bifurcated discovery
plan.
4. Once the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their Complaint, the Parties should confer to reach an
agreement
on the scope and schedule of discovery needed related to
certification of the class. If the parties are unable to
agree,
they should contact the Court and request a phone conference.
5. Upon completion of that discovery, the Plaintiffs will file
their motion for class certification.
6. After the Court rules on class certification, a scheduling
conference will be held to schedule the remainder of the
case.
Eaton provides power management solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iXsMws at no extra
charge.[CC]
EIDP INC: Class Experts Deposition Due Jan. 24, 2025
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDY CAPORALE, et al., v.
EIDP, INC., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the
Hon. Judge Sherry Fallon entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
-- The deadline for the deposition of Plaintiffs' class experts is
set for Jan. 24, 2025.
-- The deadline for the Defendants to oppose the Plaintiff's class
certification motion is Feb. 21, 2025.
EIDP provides seeds and crop protection products for the
agriculture industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uxOvlR at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELEGANCE LIVING: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Gervacio Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOBETH GERVACIO, MONISHA GURUNG, and ERIKA BELL, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated
v. ELEGANCE LIVING EMPLOYER BERKELEY, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; ELEGANCE LIVING EMPLOYER, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. 24CV096365 (Cal. Super., Oct. 18, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants maintained a systematic, company-wide policy and
practice of failing to pay employees for all hours worked,
including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the
California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders.
The Defendants failed to provide employees with timely and
duty-free meal periods, failed to maintain accurate records of all
meal periods taken or missed, and failed to pay an additional
hour's pay for each workday a meal period violation occurred, the
Plaintiff avers.
Furthermore, the Defendants failed to incorporate all remuneration
when calculating the correct rate of pay and meal and rest break
premium rate of pay, leading to underpayment to the Plaintiffs and
the Class, the Plaintiff adds.
Ms. Gervacio worked as a non-exempt Human Resources ("HR") manager
and director of business administration beginning on June 1, 2023.
Ms. Gurung worked as a non-exempt medication technician beginning
on May 17, 2023.
Elegance is an assisted living and memory support community that
offers an active lifestyle to seniors.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arash Sadat, Esq.
Camron Dowlatshahi, Esq.
MILLS SADAT DOWLAT LLP
333 South Hope Street, 40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 628-3856
E-mail: arash@msdlawyers.com
camron@msdlawyers.com
ELI LILLY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Insulin Pricing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY; NOVO NORDISK
INC.; SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC; EVERNORTH HEALTH, INC. (FORMERLY
EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY); EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; EXPRESS
SCRIPTS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; ESI MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES, INC.;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS PHARMACY, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS
PHARMACY, INC; CAREMARK RX, LLC; CAREMARK PCS HEALTH, LLC;
CAREMARK, LLC; UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; OPTUMRX INC.;
OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., (RE: INSULIN PRICE FIXING LITIGATION), Case No.
2:24-cv-10655 (D.N.J., Nov. 21, 2024) alleges that the Defendants
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
Missouri law by engaging in the Insulin Pricing Scheme.
According to the complaint, Insulin Pricing Scheme directly and
foreseeably caused, and continues to cause, harm to Plaintiff. This
action seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, actual
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
available relief to address and abate the harm caused by the
Scheme. The Manufacturers and PBMs understand that the PBMs'
national formularies drive drug utilization. The more accessible a
drug is on the PBMs' national formularies, the more that drug will
be purchased throughout the United States. Conversely, exclusion of
a drug from one or more of the PBMs' formularies can render the
drug virtually inaccessible for millions of covered persons. 11.
Given the PBMs' market power and the crucial role their standard
formularies play in the pharmaceutical pricing chain, all
Defendants know that the PBM Defendants wield enormous influence
over drug prices and purchasing behavior. The unfair and deceptive
conspiracy at the root of this Complaint -- the "Insulin Pricing
Scheme" -- was born from this mutual understanding., the lawsuit
contends.
Defendants Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi (the "Manufacturer
Defendants") manufacture the vast majority of insulins and other
diabetes medications available in the United States.
In 2020 -- as in years past -- the three Manufacturer Defendants
controlled 92% (by volume) and 96% (by revenue) of the global
market for diabetes drugs.
Defendants CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx (the "PBM
Defendants") are pharmacy benefit managers that work in concert
with the Manufacturer Defendants to dictate the availability and
prices of the at-issue drugs for most of the U.S. market.
The PBM Defendants are the three largest PBMs in the United States
(controlling more than 80% of the PBM market). They also operate
some of the largest pharmacies in the United States.
And they are part of the same corporate families as three of the
largest insurance companies in the United States -- Aetna (CVS
Health), Cigna (Express Scripts), and UnitedHealthcare (OptumRx).
These Defendant corporate conglomerates sit at 5th (UnitedHealth
Group), 6th (CVS Health), and 15th (Cigna) on the Fortune 500 list
as of year-end 2023.
The cost of diabetes medications has skyrocketed over the past 20
years. Over that time, the average cost of consumer goods and
services has risen 1.75-fold. The cost of some diabetes medications
has risen more than 10-fold. These price increases are not due to
the rising cost of goods, production costs, investment in research
and development, or competitive market forces.
These price increases have been engineered by Defendants to
exponentially increase their profits at the expense of payors, like
Plaintiff, and their plan members. It is a multi-billion-dollar
industry. 3. Diabetes is widespread.
According to the American Diabetes Association, the total estimated
cost of diabetes in the U.S. in 2022 was $413 billion. That
includes $307 billion in direct medical costs and $106 billion in
secondary costs. 4. In St. Charles County, 7.9% of adults are
living with diabetes. BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jayne Conroy, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue
7th Floor New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Michael Angelides, Esq.
Sarah Burns, Esq.
Holly Nighbert, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
Telephone: (618) 259-2222
Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
E-mail: mangelides@simmonsfirm.com
sburns@simmonsfirm.com
hnighbert@simmonsfirm.com
EMIRATES: Class Cert Bid Filing in Farah Suit Due March 17, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Sarah Netburn entered a class certification order as follows
-- By Nov. 29, 2024, the Defendants shall complete production of
the
ESI discovery discussed at the Sept. 27, 2024 conference.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to complete depositions of the
Defendant's corporate representatives is Jan. 15, 2025.
-- All fact discovery, including Defendants' depositions of the
Plaintiffs, shall be completed by Mar. 10, 2025.
-- The deadline for the Plaintiffs to move for class certification
is
Mar. 17, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6sxo0t at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQUIFAX INC: Stolfat Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXEI STOLFAT, v. EQUIFAX
INC., Case No. 9:24-cv-80856-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Donald
Middlebrooks entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Plaintiffs filed motion for class certification on Oct. 3,
2024, The Defendant filed its Response on Nov. 18, 2024. The
Plaintiff requests the certification of a class, representing those
consumers who may have been affected by allegedly problematic
practices of Defendant and the credit reporting industry more
broadly.
The Plaintiff further represents that he "will fairly and
adequately represent the class" despite his status as a pro se
litigant, since he "has a strong understanding of the issues at
hand and is committed to vigorously pursuing relief on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals."
Equifax is an American multinational consumer credit reporting
agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Anx7mt at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVERON SOLUTIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goss Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
DONOVAN A. GOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERON SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01587 (W.D. Pa., Nov. 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Goss was employed by the Defendant as a service
technician.
Everon Solutions, LLC is a leading national provider of commercial
security, fire, sprinkler, and life safety solutions for complex,
multi-site businesses and organizations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
Facsimile: (717) 233-8133
Email: lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com
EZ LENDER LLC: Villalta Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EZ Lender LLC. The
case is styled as Miguel Villalta, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. EZ Lender LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01419-JLT-BAM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
EZ Lender -- https://ezlender.co/ -- offers a convenient way to get
the funds you need, even if you have less than perfect credit.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Certification Filing Due March 28, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SPENCER HCKATHORN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and
FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 4:24-cv-00174-CVE-MTS (N.D.
Okla.),
the Hon. Judge Claire Eagan entered a scheduling order for class
certification:
Event Scheduled Deadlines
Initial Disclosures: Dec. 5, 2024
Motions for leave to amend or add Jan. 15, 2025
additional parties:
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff Feb. 28, 2025
(issues of invitation, permission,
consent) Parties are encouraged to
complete as much merits discovery as
possible by this date as well:
Class Certification Motion filed with March 28, 2025
all supporting evidence, including
expert disclosures:
Class Certification Response filed April 18, 2025
with all supporting evidence,
including expert disclosures:
Class Certification Reply filed with May 2, 2025
any rebuttal evidence, including
rebuttal expert disclosures, if any:
Class Certification Hearing: May 22, 2025
@ 9:30 a.m.
Farmers Insurance offers automobile, property, life, renters,
business, umbrella, pet, and financial product insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l0v1Jf at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Plaintiffs Seek to Exclude Expert Opinion
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PISTORIO, et al.,
v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
exclude certain opinions and testimony of Defendant FCA US LLC's
expert Dr. Denise Martin pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 403,
702, and 703 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579
(1993).
In support, Plaintiffs rely upon their Brief in Support of this
Motion and exhibits, oral argument of counsel, and such other and
further material as the Court may request and consider.
Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a), counsel for Plaintiffs sought concurrence
from counsel for Defendant FCA US LLC on November 20, 2024. During
the call, counsel for Plaintiffs explained the nature of this
Motion and its legal basis and requested concurrence, but
concurrence was not obtained, necessitating this Motion.
The Plaintiffs allege that FCA manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and sold 2017-2019 Chrysler Pacifica and Chrysler 300 vehicles with
defective Uconnect infotainment systems. These infotainment systems
"suffer from freezing, loss of backup camera functionality, loss of
navigation system functionality, black screens, repeated
unintentional reboots, and general lack of operation."
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MnL6iN at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq.
Mitchell J. Kendrick, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
mjk@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3062
E-mail: ldeutch@bm.net
josterwise@bm.net
- and -
Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com
- and -
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
FLAGSTAR BANK: Class Cert Bid Filing in Angus Due Nov. 14, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Angus v. Flagstar Bank,
FSB (Flagstar December 2021 Data Security Incident Litigation),
Case No. 2:22-cv-11385-BRM-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Brandy
McMillion entered a case management requirements and scheduling
order:
Event Deadline
Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures: Dec. 6, 2024
Deadline to Amend Pleadings: March 5,
Fact Discovery Cutoff: June 5, 2025
Rule 26(a)(2) Plaintiffs' Expert Witness July 7, 2025
List/Disclosures/Report:
Rule 26(a)(2) Defendant's Expert Witness Aug. 6, 2025
List/Disclosures/Report:
Expert Discovery Cutoff: Oct. 27, 2025
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class: Nov. 14, 2025
Defendant's Response to Motion to Certify Dec. 15, 2025
Class:
Plaintiffs' Reply to Motion to Certify: Jan. 9. 2026
Class
Flagstar Bank is an American commercial bank headquartered in Troy,
Michigan.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TSaMmG at no extra
charge.[CC]
FLO HEALTH: Parties Seek to Permanently Seal Class Supporting Docs
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERICA FRASCO, et al., v.
FLO HEALTH, INC., GOOGLE, LLC, FACEBOOK, INC., APPSFLYER, INC., and
FLURRY, INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-00757-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order to permanently seal portions of the
parties' papers and supporting documents filed in connection with
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Meta requests that the Court grant its request to permanently seal
limited portions of: Exhibits 5, 23, 38, 40, 84, 86, 112, 113, and
121 to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, Defendants'
Appendix filed in connection with Defendants' Joint Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, which includes Exhibits
245, 247, the Affirmative Expert Reports of Amalia R. Miller and
Lorin Hitt, Expert Rebuttal Report of Amalia R. Miller, and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. Meta further requests
that the Court grant its request to permanently seal Exhibits 39,
69, 70, and 127 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and
the Declaration of David Schleimer in their entirety.
On August 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification along with 131 exhibits.
Flo Health provides women's health mobile application services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=30YWFE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
John A. Macoretta, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: dzinser@srkattorneys.com
jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
David Saldamando, Esq.
Danielle Izzo, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: cvillegas@labaton.com
mcanty@labaton.com
dizzo@labaton.com
dsaldamando@labaton.com
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
- and -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
Kas L. Gallucci, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 696-9006
Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
kas@consumersadvocates.com
alexis@consumersadvocates.com
- and -
Kent Morgan Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
1632 Homestead Trail
Long Lake, MN 55356
Telephone: (612) 940-4452
E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com
- and -
William Darryl Harris, II, Esq.
HARRIS LEGAL ADVISORS LLC
3136 Kingsdale Center, Suite 246
Columbus, OH 43221
Telephone: (614) 504-3350
Facsimile: (614) 340-1940
E-mail: will@harrislegaladvisors.com
- and -
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
Frank Busch, Esq.
WAGSTAFFE, VON LOEWENFELDT,
BUSCH & RADWICK LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 725
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 357-8900
Facsimile: (415) 357-8910
E-mail: wagstaffe@wvbrlaw.com
busch@wvbrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Lauren Blas, Esq.
Ashley Rogers, Esq.
Joseph R. Rose, Esq.
Abigail A. Barrera, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: (213) 229-7503
Facsimile: (213) 229-6503
E-mail: CChorba@gibsondunn.com
LBlas@gibsondunn.com
ARogers@gibsondunn.com
JRose@gibsondunn.com
ABarrera@gibsondunn.com
- and -
Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
Melanie M. Blunschi, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
885 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4834
- and -
Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
Eduardo E. Santacana, Esq.
Tiffany Lin, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 858-7400
E-mail: bhur@willkie.com
sagnolucci@willkie.com
esantacana@willkie.com
tlin@willkie.com
- and -
Jason J. Kim, Esq.
Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
Samuel A. Danon, Esq.
John J. Delionado, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
550 S. Hope St., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 532-2000
Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
E-mail: KimJ@HuntonAK.com
AMortimer@HuntonAK.com
sdanon@HuntonAK.com
jdelionado@HuntonAK.com
- and -
Benjamin Sadun, Esq.
Brenda R. Sharton, Esq.
DECHERT LLP
US Bank Tower
633 West 5th Street, Suite 4900
Los Angeles, CA
Telephone: (213) 808-5700
E-mail: benjamin.sadun@dechert.com
brenda.sharton@dechert.com
FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Flowers Bid for Class Certification Terminated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flowers, et al., v.
Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00330
(E.D. Ark., Filed April 21, 2021), the Hon. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky
entered an order directing the Clerk to administratively terminate
motion for class certification.
The nature of suit states breach of contract.
Flywheel operates as an oil and gas exploration and production
company. The Company focuses on the acquisition of oil and gas
assets.[CC]
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Reconsideration of Nov. 7, 2024 Order in Lessin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL
SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.),
the Defendants will move the Court on Feb. 27, 2025, pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 7.1.i and Section II(G) of this Court's Civil Case
Procedures, to grant its motion for reconsideration of the Court's
Nov. 7, 2024 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.
Ford requests the Court to reconsider:
-- The Court's ruling certifying a class for the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act claim, a claim that was previously
dismissed;
-- The Court's ruling that individualized issues did not
predominate
regarding whether class members purchased their Super Duty
trucks
"primarily for personal, family, or household" or business
use;
-- The Court's ruling certifying classes for Maine and South
Carolina
implied warranty claims; and
-- The Court's ruling that differing performance rates did not
preclude a finding of a common defect or the uniform
materiality
of that alleged defect.
Ford Motor is an American multinational automobile manufacturer.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1gKAgZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
Amy Laurendeau, Esq.
Kelsey M. Larson, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
E-mail: redwards@omm.com
alaurendeau@omm.com
klarson@omm.com
GENERAL PARTS: Dralle Class Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Alan Dralle and John Grana
individually, and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v.
General Parts Distribution LLC, Case No. 2024CH08816 was removed
from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Oct.
18, 2024.
The Northern Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-10809 to the proceeding.
The suit demands $75,000 in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Franklin U. Valderrama.
General Parts is in the business of selling automotive parts.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
Aaron S. Welo, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren Ste 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
E-mail: whb@beaumontcostales.com
asw@beaumont-law.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
Tara D. Kennedy, Esq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
111 S. Wacker Drive Ste. 4700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 704-7777
E-mail: mwolfe@shb.com
tkennedy@shb.com
GEO GROUP: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HUGO GONZALEZ, JOSE BACA,
ERICK LOPEZ, MARIO MANJARREZ, and RICARDO SANDOVAL GUADARRAMA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE GEO
GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-04014-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them leave
to file a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
or in the alternative, strike the new evidence and argument raised
for the first time in Plaintiffs' reply.
GEO provided notice of the instant application and relief sought to
all parties in this case on November 20, 2024, including:
The Plaintiffs advised they oppose the ex parte relief sought.
This ex parte application is based on this Notice; the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities; the Declaration of Ariel N. Redfern
filed herewith; the pleadings and papers on file in this action,
and such evidence or argument as may be presented at hearing on the
application.
The Plaintiffs have improperly submitted new evidence and argument
for the first time with their reply to the Motion for Class
Certification. GEO will be prejudiced if the Court considers the
new evidence and argument without providing it the opportunity to
respond.
GEO Group is a publicly traded C corporation that invests in
private prisons and mental health facilities in the United States,
Australia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fEX7Ok at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
Tessa R. Baizer, Esq.
UCLA LAW CLINICS
385 Charles E Young Drive
East Los Angeles, CA 90095
E-mail: csweetser@sshhzlaw.com
baizer@law.ucla.edu
- and -
Paul Hoffman, Esq.
John Washington, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS
HOFFMAN & ZELDES LLP
200 Pier Avenue, #226
Hermosa Beach, CA 90245
Telephone: (310) 396-0731
E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
jwashington@sshhzlaw.com
- and -
Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
Lindsay Battles, Esq.
McLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
975 East Green Street
Pasadena, CA 91106
Telephone: (626) 844-7660
E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com
lbattles@mbllegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Susan E. Coleman, Esq.
Deann R. Rivard, Esq.
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953
Telephone: (213) 236-0600
Facsimile: (213) 236-2700
E-mail: scoleman@bwslaw.com
drivard@bwslaw.com
- and -
Joseph L. Mcgeady, Esq.
Ariel N. Redfern, Esq.
Marshall C. Wallace, Esq.
ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101-0903
Telephone: (619) 233-1155
Facsimile: (619) 233-1158
E-mail: jmcgeady@allenmatkins.com
aredfern@allenmatkins.com
mwallace@allenmatkins.com
GN HEARING CARE: Crumwell Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GN HEARING CARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08781 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.beltone.com/en-us/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
GN Hearing Care Corporation, doing business as GN ReSound, develops
and manufactures hearing aids. The Company manufactures devices
such as hearing aids and headphones that help people with hearing
problems. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GOOGLE INC: Valencia Bid to Remove Incorrectly Filed Docs OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion to remove incorrectly filed documents filed with the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs Christopher Valencia, John Kevranian, Terry Diggs,
Kimberley Woodruff, Rethena Green, Salvatore Toronto, and Tara
Williams move the Court to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents.
-- Exhibit 6 Declaration of Named Plaintiff Terry Diggs
-- Exhibit 7 Declaration of Named Plaintiff Rethena Green
-- Exhibit 9 Declaration of Named Plaintiff Salvatore Toronto
-- Exhibit 10- Declaration of Named Plaintiff Christopher
Valencia
-- ECF 750-20: Exhibit 12 – Declaration of Named Plaintiff Tara
Williams
Google is an American-based multinational corporation and
technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine
technology, and cloud computing.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SoY6BY at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
Caroline Corbitt, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
1900 Powell Street, Suite 450
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
ccc@pritzkerlevine.com
HAPPY HIPPO: Faces Class Suit Over Kratom Products' Deceptive Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L.S., individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HAPPY HIPPO, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-02849-DAD-SCR (E.D.
Cal., Oct. 10, 2024) is a civil class action against the Defendant
for false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices
regarding its kratom powder, capsule, and liquid extract products.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant intentionally
misrepresents its Products to mislead consumers into thinking that
kratom is a healthy, sugar-free, caffeine substitute, that is
equivalent to any standard energy drink. The Defendant goes so far
as to make its logo of a smiling, pink, happy hippopotamus. The
Products look like a watermelon candy more than they do a hard
opioid.
Kratom is a dried leaf sold as a loose powder, packaged into gel
capsules, or as a liquid extract. Kratom is extremely addictive,
and as a result, millions of unsuspecting consumers have developed
kratom dependencies that have caused them serious physical,
psychological, and financial harm.
The Defendant intentionally failed to disclose these material facts
regarding the dangers of kratom consumption anywhere on its
Products' labeling, packaging, website, or marketing material. As a
result, the Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer
protection laws, the suit contends.
The Defendant relies on its Products' vague packaging and
consumers' limited knowledge of kratom pharmacology to get
unsuspecting users addicted to its Products and reaps profits from
these addictions. The Defendant relies on this ignorance and does
nothing to correct it. Such activity is outrageous and is contrary
to California law and public policy, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks relief in this action individually, and as a
class action, on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of the
Defendant's Products, for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, breach of implied warranty, unjust
enrichment, and fraud by omission.
The Plaintiff has been purchasing and using Happy Hippo's kratom
Products for several years. He uses them on a daily basis. In or
around 2022, his addiction and use was at its worst. He was
purchasing bags of the Happy Hippo kratom powder, spending about
$80.00- $90.00 per month for 500 grams at a time.
Happy Hippo offers kratom powder, capsules, and extracts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1234 Camino del Mar
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619)762-1910
Facsimile: (858) 313-8150
E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
scott@lcllp.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
HONDA MOTOR: Levitt, et al., Appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hamid Bolooki v. Honda
Motor Company Limited, et al. (re Honda Idle Stop Litigation), Case
No. 2:22-cv-04252-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi
entered an order as follows:
-- The Court concludes that Adam J. Levitt of DiCello Levitt LLP;
H.
Clay Barnett II of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles,
P.C.; and Andrew T. Trailor of Andrew T. Trailor P.A. shall be
appointed co-lead class counsel.
-- C. Moze Cowper shall be appointed as liaison counsel.
-- The Court has reviewed the qualifications of each counselor and
is
satisfied that all firms have sufficiently represented
Plaintiffs
as interim counsel and have the requisite experience to
continue
the representation.
-- The Court determines that, pursuant to the Court's class
certification definitions and its order on Mr. Pimentel's
motion
to intervene, Plaintiffs have shown adequate class
representatives
in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, Washington,
Texas, Indiana, California, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Virginia,
Louisiana, and New York.
-- The Court notes that there is no adequate class representative
in
Rhode Island.
-- The Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause by December 3, 2024,
as
to why its Rhode Island class should not be decertified.
-- Alternatively, if Plaintiffs intend to drop their Rhode Island
claims, they should amend their complaint accordingly
Honda Motor is a Japanese multinational conglomerate that
manufactures automobiles, motorcycles, and battery-powered
equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8QywBh at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOWARD UNIVERSITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Oct. 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN G. WHETSTONE, v.
HOWARD UNIVERSITY, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02409-LLA (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Loren Alikhan entered a scheduling order as follows:
-- Start of Fact Discovery: Nov. 20, 2024
-- Rule 26 Initial Disclosures: Dec. 13, 2024
-- Joinder of Additional Parties and Dec. 20, 2024
Amendment of Pleadings:
-- Close of Fact Discovery: June 27, 2025
-- Plaintiff's Expert Reports July 11, 2025
-- Defendants' Expert Reports: Aug. 8, 2025
-- Plaintiff's Expert Rebuttal Reports: Aug. 29, 2025
-- Close of Expert Discovery: Sept. 19, 2025
-- Plaintiff's Motion for Class Oct. 3, 2025
Certification:
-- Defendants' Opposition to Oct. 31, 2025
Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Nov. 14, 2025
His Motion for Class
Certification:
Howard University is a private, historically black, federally
chartered research university.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpzTNP at no extra
charge.[CC]
HUMACYTE INC: Cutshall Sues Over Drop in Share Price
----------------------------------------------------
JAMES A. CUTSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMACYTE, INC.; LAURA E. NIKLASON;
DALE A. SANDER; and HEATHER PRICHARD, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00954 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 18, 2024) is a class action on behalf
of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Humacyte securities between May 10, 2024 and October 17, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to pursue
claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
Durham, North Carolina facility failed to comply with good
manufacturing practices, including quality assurance and microbial
testing; (2) that the FDA's review of the BLA would be delayed
while Humacyte remediated these deficiencies; and (3) that, as a
result, there was a substantial risk to FDA approval of ATEV for
vascular trauma; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis.
The Company's stock price declined $0.95, or 16.35 percent, to
close at $4.86 per share on October 17, 2024, on unusually heavy
volume.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Humacyte, Inc. operates as a biotech company. The Company develops
and manufactures implantable bioengineered human tissues. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Garth Spencer, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: CLinehan@glancylaw.com
GSpencer@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Email: HSmith@howardsmithlaw.com
HUMANA INC: Class Cert Opposition Extended to Dec. 17
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ELLIOT, v. HUMANA,
INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00329-RGJ-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge
Colin Lindsay entered an order that:
(1) Defendant's motion to extend Nov. 26, 2024, deadline for its
opposition to Plaintiff's motion to certify class is
granted.
On or before Dec. 17, 2024, the Defendant shall file its
response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
(2) Defendant's motion for hearing is denied as moot.
The Court finds that an extension of the deadline is warranted.
Although the Plaintiff's expert does not provide any new theories
regarding how members of the class are identified, the method
by which Plaintiff has calculated the size of the class is new.
Additionally, the Parties assert that Plaintiff has agreed to
disclose the telephone numbers comprising the class and to permit
Defendant to conduct depositions of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses.
(DN 125.) Defendant will need additional time to conduct such
depositions, review the report, and prepare a rebuttal.
Humana is a health and well-being company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aOv07s at no extra
charge.[CC]
IC SYSTEM: Allowed Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEZARK v. I.C. SYSTEM,
INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00403 (W.D. Pa., Filed March 20, 2020), the
Hon. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand entered an order granting
motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Brief by Defendant I.C. System.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
IC System is a debt recovery agency.[CC]
IMPACT MHC MANAGEMENT: Knox Suit Removed to D. Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Marcie Knox, Cheryl Skaj, Janet Eich, and
Bradley Bandas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Impact MHC Management, LLC; Impact Communities, LLC;
Sartell MHP, LLC; Sartell MHP 2, LLC; Gemstone Communities, LLC;
Sartell MHC, LLC; David Reynolds; and Frank Rolfe, was removed from
the Stearns County District Court, Seventh Judicial District, State
of Minnesota, to the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota on Nov. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No.
0:24-cv-04235.
The Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action: common law
fraud (Count 1); Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
Consumer Fraud Act (Count 2); Minnesota utility billing laws (Count
3); breach of contract or failure to maintain rental property
(Count 4); Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (Count 5); common law
negligence (Count 6); statutory nuisance (Count 7); failure to
maintain park conditions (Count 8); and imposition of new rules
(Count 9).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aron J. Frakes, Esq.
NATHAN D. Converse, Esq.
FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
60 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 492-7000
Email: afrakes@fredlaw.com
nconverse@fredlaw.com
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Faces Suit Over Wheel of Fortune-Themed Games
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLOTTE BOWNES; JOSEPH LAGRECA; JESSICA NAUMANN; and CHRISTOPHER
GOODIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY PLC; MGM RESORTS INTERNATIONAL;
BALLY'S CORPORATION; PENN ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; STATION CASINOS,
LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00528 (D. Nev., Nov. 21, 2024) concerns a
scheme to defraud consumers perpetrated by Defendants through their
deceptive and misleading promotion and operation of "Wheel of
Fortune"-themed electronic gaming devices, manufactured and sold to
them by Defendant IGT, on their casino floors nationwide.
According to the complaint, the "Wheel of Fortune" electronic
gaming devices were designed and manufactured by Defendant IGT, and
have been and continue to be operated by the Casino Defendants at
their casinos nationwide, to systematically defraud casino patrons
out of their hard-earned money.
All of the "Wheel of Fortune"-themed electronic gaming devices at
issue in this case contain, as a signature feature, an attached
spinning "bonus wheel" that creates a 'game-within-a-game."
-- It works like this: when a designated symbol appears on the
primary component of the electronic gaming device, the player
gets to spin an attached wheel that contains several equal-
sized, pie-shaped segments, each of which is designated a
specific monetary amount, and an indicator affixed atop the
wheel that points downwards at the segments of the wheel (the
"Bonus Wheel Feature"). When the spinning wheel stops, the
wheel's indicator points to a particular segment of the wheel,
which in turn indicates the monetary amount won by the
player.
The Defendants' design, presentation, and promotion of the Bonus
Wheel Feature depicts a truly mechanical spinning wheel, such as a
roulette wheel -- one that operates pursuant to the laws of
physics. Accordingly, casino players reasonably believe that when
they play the game and are able to spin the wheel, the indicator
atop the wheel will point to one of the wheel's equal-sized
segments at random when the wheel stops spinning, giving the player
just as good of a chance of landing on the highest-value segment as
the player has of landing on the lowest-value segment.
However, the Defendants fail to disclose that the outcome of a
player's spin of the wheel is not random at all, but rather is
predetermined by an internal computer that Defendants have
programmed to ensure the wheel stops much more frequently with the
indicator pointing at one of the segments with a lower monetary
amount than with the indicator pointing at one of the segments with
a higher monetary amount.
Defendant International Game Technology PLC is incorporated in
England and Wales. IGT maintains offices in Las Vegas, Nevada,
including its "Global Gaming Headquarters," and in Reno, Nevada,
its "principal location of manufacturing, logistics, and supply
chain leadership."
IGT designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes computerized
casino gaming products and systems across international markets,
including in the state of Nevada and throughout the United States,
has sold and continues to sell electronic gaming devices (including
the "Wheel of Fortune"-themed devices) to the Casino Defendants,
and has shipped and continues to ship such devices to the Casino
Defendants' gaming establishments in Las Vegas, Nevada and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David C. O'Mara, Esq.
THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
311 East Liberty St.
Reno, NE 89501
Telephone: (775) 323-1321
Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
E-mail: david@omaralaw.net
JACKSON LABORATORY: Faces Seijas Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE JACKSON
LABORATORY, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY. The case is captioned as
Emmalie Seijas, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. THE JACKSON LABORATORY, AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY, et al., Case
No. 24CV020626 (Cal. Super., Oct. 10, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi.
The nature of suit states Employment Complaint Case.
Jackson Laboratory is an independent, non-profit biomedical
research institution which was founded by Clarence Cook Little in
1929.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arby Aiwazia, Esq.
LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
Website: www.calljustice.com
410 Arden Ave Ste 203
Glendale, CA 91203-4007
Telephone: (818) 265-1020
Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
E-mail: arby@calljustice.com
JEREMY BARR: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Detainee Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Edward Thurston,
Wendall Hall, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, v. Jeremy Barr, Jarad Anderson, and Cynthia Noblett, Case
No. 2:24-cv-01070-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.), Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying a class of:
"All past, present and current civilly committed or civilly
detained persons at Florida civil commitment center (FCCC) who
participated in or were employees in the vocational resident
work
program for recovery solutions at FCCC, including persons who
are
not currently civilly committed but who will be civilly
committed
or detained at FCCC in the future, who will participate in the
vocational resident work program in the future for the recovery
solutions at FCCC."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iWGMhq at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC]
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Covacheula Bid for Class Certification Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORBIN COVACHEULA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08806-ZNQ-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid N. Quraishi entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Jersey Firestop is a complete full service mechanical insulation
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R383Un at no extra
charge.[CC]
JKS HOME: Court Certifies Two Classes for Settlement in Smith Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAYCE SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JKS HOME
IMPROVEMENT, LLC, JEREMY SAGER, and BRITTANY SAGER, Case No.
3:23-cv-01509-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne Nardacci
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional
certification of the settlement class, appointment of plaintiff’s
counsel as class counsel, and approval of the proposed notice of
the class settlement.
The Court certifies the following classes for settlement purposes
only:
-- FLSA Class:
"All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees who
worked for Defendants during the period from Nov. 30, 2020
through
the date of the issuance of this Preliminary Approval Order."
-- NYLL Class:
"All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees who
worked for Defendant during the period from November 30, 2017
through the date of the issuance of this Preliminary Approval
Order."
The Court appoints McLaughlin & Stern, LLP as Class Counsel.
The Court appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC as the Settlement
Claims Administrator.
The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on Friday, April 10,
2025, at 10:00 a.m. to address: (a) whether the proposed Agreement
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b)
whether to finally certify the NYLL Class and the FLSA Class for
settlement purposes only; (c) Class Counsel's application for
attorneys’ fees and costs; and (d) Plaintiff’s application for
a service payment. Class Counsel shall file a Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement on or before March 26, 2025, fifteen
(15) days before the Fairness Hearing.
JKS is a home improvement contractor serving the Southern Tier of
New York.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Hts9A at no extra
charge.[CC]
KALEIDA HEALTH: Class Cert Teleconference in Clearly Set for Dec. 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cleary, et al., v. Kaleida
Health, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026 (W.D.N.Y., Filed Jan. 7,
2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo entered an order that the
deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is held in abeyance.
-- A further teleconference is set for Dec. 5, 2024, at 11:00 a.m.
To
access the teleconference, the parties shall dial (716)
764-9100
and enter access code 121573632# sufficiently in advance of the
proceeding.
-- The parties shall submit a brief status letter to the court by
Dec. 3, 2024.
The nature of suit states Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).
Kaleida is a healthcare provider in Western New York.[CC]
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: Bid for Rule 23 Class Certification OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.H., by her guardians
J.G. and C.K., and J.G. and C.K., individually1, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. KATHLEEN C.
HOCHUL, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New
York, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00735-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lawrence Vilardo entered an order granting the motion for
certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2).
The two subclasses shall include those who meet the criteria set
forth in the plaintiffs' proposed class definition.
The Court appoints Bruce A. Goldstein and Alexander J. Douglas as
class counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B) and
23(g). The case is referred back to Judge McCarthy for further
proceedings consistent with the referral order of April 3, 2023.
In sum, because the plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)
requirements and at least one of the Rule 23(b) requirements, class
certification is appropriate.
On Sept. 8, 2020, a group of plaintiffs with developmental
disabilities and their caregivers filed an amended complaint under
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. They alleged that
the defendants—Andrew Cuomo, then Governor of the State of New
York; and Dr. Theodore Kastner, then Commissioner of the New York
State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities
("OPWDD")—unlawfully denied them access to OPWDD-funded programs
that provide supported and community-based residential placements.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oDxOtE at no extra
charge.[CC]
KINO LORBER: Faces Dallum Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DALLUM; and JEREMY PADOW, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KINO LORBER LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08775 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2024) alleges
violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, federal and state
wiretap laws, and invasions into consumers' privacy.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant did not
seek and obtained consent from Consumers to utilize the tracking
pixel (the "Pixel") to track, share, and exchange their personal
identifying information, search terms, and precise webpage
information with Facebook.
The Defendant, despite its use of the Pixel on the pages of the
Website selling pre-recorded video content, failed to obtain
Consumers' consent to allow the Pixel to operate in a way that
shares Consumers' protected information with Facebook.
The Defendant purposefully implemented and utilized the Tracking
Tools to intercept and read Consumers' PII and communications with
the Website. Defendant knew that the Tracking Tools would feed
Consumers' PII and communications to third parties. The Website
does not provide notice of or obtain consent as to such practices,
says the suit.
Kino Lorber LLC is an international film distribution company based
in New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
gishimoto@zlk.com
LAKEVIEW SECURITY: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yesinia Uribe Rojo v.
Lakeview Security & Investigations, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-05729-JPO-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting a 3-week extension of time to file their
opposition papers in response to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
collective certification by no later than Dec. 18, 2024.
The Defendants submit this extension request because, unbeknownst
to my firm, the Plaintiff Yesinia Uribe Rojo apparently initiated
contact with my clients about potential settlement, had direct
settlement discussions with my clients, and led my clients to
believe that this matter was going to be settled in the near
future.
In reliance on Plaintiff's representations, my clients assumed that
the Plaintiff's collective motion would be mooted by the
anticipated resolution of this case.
On Nov. 11, 2024, my firm received a telephone call from Mr. Lee,
concerning a request for potential mediation on a class-wide basis
and his intention to proceed with the litigation.
As a result of the breakdown in settlement discussions, the
Defendants submit this extension request, so that they will have
sufficient time to gather and provide the necessary information to
my firm in support of Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's
Collective Motion.
The Defendants also submit this extension request because it
appears that my clients may possess information that may serve as a
basis for Defendants to file a cross-motion for limited relief.
This is Defendants' first request for an extension of the November
27th deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's
Collective Motion. In the event the Court grants this motion, in
whole or part, Defendants consent to providing a commensurate
extension of time for Plaintiff to file her reply in support of
Plaintiff's Collective Motion and/or opposition to any cross-motion
that may be filed.
Lakeview Security is a New York based, full-service Security and
Investigative Firm.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I11Rcc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Keith J. Frank, Esq.
FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA
The Omni, 333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
Uniondale, NY 11553
Telephone: (516) 248-1700
E-mail: kfrank@forchellilaw.com
LIFE CHANGING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Green Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
CYNTIA GREEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE CHANGING CARE LLC; and SAMUEL L.
SAUNDERS, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02017-CEF (N.D. Ohio, Nov.
19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Green was employed by the Defendants as a support staff.
Life Changing Care LLC provides service to people with intellectual
or developmental disabilities and their families. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Telephone: (216) 912-2221
Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
LIFE INSURANCE: Class Cert. Filing in Hoffman Due Sept. 22, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT HOFFMAN, et al., v.
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, Case No. 23-cv-04068-PCP
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered a case
management order as follows:
Exchange of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures: Dec. 9, 2024
Stipulated Protective Order Filing: Dec. 9, 2024
Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 22, 2025
Opposition to Class Certification, Motions Nov. 14, 2025
to Exclude Plaintiff Experts:
Reply to Class Certification, Motions to Dec. 19, 2025
Exclude Defense Experts:
Fact Discovery Cutoff: Feb. 13, 2026
Designation of Opening Experts with Reports: March 2, 2026
Designation of Rebuttal Experts with Reports: April 3, 2026
Expert Discovery Cutoff: April 24, 2026
Joint Pretrial Conference: Oct. 20, 2026
Life Insurance specializes in annuity and life insurance products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tKgQha at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIFTED LIQUIDS: Hernandez Sues Over Mislabeled Vape Products
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSUE HERNANDEZ; and SERGIO HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIFTED LIQUIDS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-11920 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 19, 2024)
is an action individually and on behalf of similarly situated
consumers who purchased the Defendant's delta-8 and delta-10
products that were falsely and misleadingly labeled as having less
than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant is
engaged in deceptive representations that its delta-8 and delta-10
vape products contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. However,
this representation is false. Independent laboratory testing
confirms Defendant's delta-8 and delta-10 products in fact
contain significantly more than 0.3% delta-9 THC. Accordingly,
Defendant's products are considered "marijuana" products (i.e.,
cannabis with more than 0.3% delta-9 THC) under federal law, and
not lawful products derived from "hemp" (i.e., cannabis with less
than 0.3% delta-9 THC), and are therefore a Schedule 1 controlled
substance.
By deceiving consumers about the content of its products, Defendant
is able to take away market share from competing products and
increase its own sales and profits, says the suit.
Lifted Liquids Inc. produces a line of CBD-infused products, CBD
devices, research and development of CBD and vape brands and
products for private label clients.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
sasha@skclassactions.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PLLC
166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 839-7000
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
LONGS DRUG: Mullin Suit Removed from State Court to D. Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER LEE MULLIN AND CHARLES JOSEPH THOMPSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LONGS DRUG STORES
CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. AND NEVADA CVS PHARMACY, L.L.C., Case No.
A-24-904193-C (Filed Oct. 8, 2024) was removed the District Court
of Clark County, Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada.
The District of Nevada Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02187
to the proceedings.
The Complaint asserts causes of action against the Defendants for:
(1) "Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS 608.018";
(2) "Failure to Pay Wages for Each Hour Worked in Violation of
NRS 608.016";
(3) "Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due at Termination in
Violation of NRS 608.020 et seq.'; and
(4) "Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
section 207."
The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of "unpaid wages and
overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and nterest."
Longs Drug distributes pharmaceutical products.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer R. Brooks, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
700 Milam Street, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002-2812
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
E-mail: jrbrooks@seyfarth.com
- and -
Gia N. Marina, Esq.
CLARK HILL PLLC
1700 South Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 500
Las Vegas, NE 89135
Telephone: (702) 862-8300
Facsimile: (702) 778-9709
E-mail: gmarina@clarkhill.com
MAGNI GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Thorne Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. THE MAGNI GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08966
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://tattoogoo.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 Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Because the Defendant's interactive website including all portions
thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s
Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.
Magni operates the Tattoo Goo online retail store, as well as the
Tattoo Goo interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, New York 10003
Telephone: (212) 228 9795
Facsimile: (212) 982 6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MARK CUBAN: Filing of Supplemental Reply Extended to Dec. 17
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robertson, et al., v. Mark
Cuban, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538 (S.D. Fla., Filed Aug. 10,
2022), the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for extension to file a supplemental reply for
motion for class certification.
-- The Plaintiffs shall reply by Dec. 17, 2024.
-- This case stay remain stayed and closed but the Court grants a
limited exception to allow Plaintiffs to depose Defendants'
class
certification expert, Harris Label, before their reply date.
The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.
Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality.
He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the
Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association.[CC]
MASTERCORP INC: Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jane Doe and John Does 1
and 2, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. MasterCorp Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00678-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the
Hon. Judge Michael Nachmanoff entered an order granting final class
and collective action settlement approval:
1.. The Court grants Class Certification for Settlement purposes
under Fed. R. Civ. P. IS 23;
2. The Court grants Collective Certification for Settlement
purposes under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and
3. The Court grants final approval of the amended settlement
agreement between Named Plaintiffs, the Settlement Class and
Collective, and Defendant MasterCorp, Inc. under Rule
23(e)(1)
and 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
4. The Court further orders that the settlement administrator
withhold ten (10) times the basic settlement share (1/205 of
the
Net Settlement Amount) to distribute pro rata among any
qualified late claimants with valid and good faith reasons
for
late claims, with no late qualified claimant receiving more
than
one basic settlement share. Upon the expiration of 90 days
after
this Order, any sum remaining of the withheld amount shall be
distributed to the timely claimants.
5. All sums necessary to cover payments to such late qualified
claimants and to distribute any sum remaining to the timely
claimants shall be paid out of the Net Settlement Amount
called
for under the Settlement. In no event shall MasterCorp be
liable
for more than the Net Settlement Amount called for under the
Settlement.
6. The payment to any late qualified claimant shall constitute
the
entire amount to which such late claimant shall be entitled
under the Settlement.
MasterCorp provides cleaning and maintenance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BYqPjI at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Defendants Seek to File Memo Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-md-02262 (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting permission to
file under seal the memorandum of law and accompanying materials in
support of both (1) Credit Suisse, NatWest, and UBS's opposition to
Plaintiffs' Oct. 4, 2024, motion for class certification (ECF No.
4190); and (2) Bank of America and JPMorgan's motion for class
decertification (collectively "Defendants' Class Certification
Briefing').
The Defendants' Class Certification Briefing contains a substantial
amount of material that has been designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and Protective
Order, dated May 12, 2016, including commercially sensitive
business information of Defendants. If such information were to be
made publicly available, Defendants and others could be
disadvantaged.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GEjYdQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2395
E-mail: jbell@gibsondunn.com
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 28, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Afanasyeva v. Melissa
Entertainments, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-22762 (S.D. Fla., Filed July
19, 2024), the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order
granting the unopposed motion to extend joinder deadline in the
scheduling order or, in the alternative, schedule a deadline for
rule 23 class certification.
-- The Plaintiff shall file any motion for class certification on
or
before Feb. 28, 2025.
-- All other deadlines set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order
shall remain in place.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]
MELISSA ENTERTAINMENTS: Joinder Deadline Extended to March 7, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YULIYA AFANASYEVA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MELISSA
ENTERTAINMENTS, INC. d/b/a NEME GASTRO BAR, Case No.
1:24-cv-22762-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting an extension of the Dec. 13, 2024 joinder
deadline to March 7, 2025, or include a March 7, 2025 deadline in
the Scheduling Order for the Plaintiff to file a Rule 23 Class
Certification Motion, and for any such further relief this Court
deems just and proper.
The requested extension of the Dec. 13, 2024, joinder deadline to
March 7, 2025, will permit the Plaintiff to conduct the necessary
discovery to file a Rule 23 Class Certification Motion.
Similarly, the inclusion of a March 7, 2025, deadline for Plaintiff
to file a Rule 23 Class Certification Motion will accomplish the
same objective. The extension or insertion of the deadline will not
prejudice Defendant or the Court. None of the remaining deadlines
in the Scheduling Order would require modification.
The Plaintiff filed her Class and Collective Action Complaint for
Damages and Demand for Jury Trial on July 19, 2024 to recover
unpaid wages, an additional amount equal to liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA").
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1aziBF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael V. Miller, Esq.
Jordan Richards, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERSJORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Gustavo D. Lage, Esq.
Augusto R. Lopez, Esq.
SANCHEZ-MEDINA, GONZALEZ, QUESADA,
LAGE, GOMEZ & MACHADO LLP
201 Alhambra Cir, Ste. 1205
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 377-1000
E-mail: glage@smgqlaw.com
alopez@smgqlaw.com
META PLATFORMS: Racamontes Sues Over Unfair Netflix Fee Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LUIS B. RACAMONTES and RONALD WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. META
PLATFORMS, INC.; and NETFLIX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11839 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 18, 2024) alleges violation of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a conspiracy against the public when they allocated
markets by agreeing that Facebook would cede the video-streaming
market to Netflix by hobbling the Watch platform. In exchange,
Netflix would keep funneling its customers' data and advertising
spend to Facebook, which used the Netflix data to further
supercharge its lucrative targeted-advertising algorithms.
This anticompetitive agreement between Facebook and Netflix
decreased consumer choices in video-streaming services while at the
same time increasing consumer costs because Netflix was able to
charge subscribers more than it would have but for Facebook's
relinquishing the video-streaming market to Netflix.
Indeed, in January 2019, shortly after Facebook and Netflix
cemented their agreement not to compete in the video-streaming
market, Netflix for the first time raised prices for all Netflix
subscriptions. At the time, these increases -- ranging from 12.5 to
18 percent depending on the type of subscription -- were "the
biggest fee hikes in Netflix's history."
Meta Platforms, Inc. operates as a social technology company. The
Company builds applications and technologies that help people
connect, find communities, and grow businesses. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Justin N. Boley, Esq.
Tyler Story, Esq.
Zoran Tasic, Esq.
Margaret Shadid, Esq.
W EXLER B OLEY & E LGERSMA LLP
311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com
jnb@wbe-llp.com
tjs@wbe-llp.com
zt@wbe-llp.com
ms@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 William St., Ste. 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
Email: klandau@tcllaw.com
atamoshunas@tcllaw.com
- and -
Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
Bailey Twyman-Metzger, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-884
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
btwymanmetzger@gustafsongluek.com
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Rodriguez Seeks Class Conditional Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOAMNA RODRIGUEZ, v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Case No. 1:24-cv-20269-JB (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
and authorizing the Plaintiffs to mail and e-mail Notice of the
lawsuit and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff Form to all Victim
Advocates who:
a. performed work for Defendants during the last three (3)
years;
b. were classified by Defendants as "engaged to wait or on
call";
and
c. who may have not paid proper overtime compensation during any
given work week of their employment within the applicable
statute of limitations period.
Conditional certification and prompt dissemination of notice of
this lawsuit to Defendants' current and former Victim Advocates is
critical to informing them of their legal right to attempt to
recover wages which this Court may determine were unlawfully
withheld.
The proposed Notice Forms (Exhibit A) will fully inform the
putative class members of their right to join this case, their
right to elect the legal representative of their choice, their
right not to join the case, and the consequences of each decision.
The Plaintiff far exceeds this Court's lenient standard for
conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA as
the affidavits and evidence filed in support of this Motion
establish that preliminary certification is warranted.
This is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions of
Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this second amended complaint
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated alleging
that they and the other victim advocates who worked for Defendant
were not properly paid for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Specifically, the Defendant misclassified the Plaintiffs as waiting
to engage despite their job duties requiring them to be engaged to
wait.
The Plaintiff worked as Victim Advocates during the three years
prior to the commencement of this lawsuit.
Miami-Dade is a county located in the southeastern part of the U.S.
state of Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=frI9yW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elvis J. Adan, Esq.
GALLARDO LAW OFFICE, P.A.
8492 SW 8th Street
Miami, FL 33144
Telephone: (305) 261-700
MICROMOBILITY.COM INC: Pretrial Conference Set for Dec. 3
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN BARRON, et al., v.
MICROMOBILITY.COM INC. f/k/a HELBIZ INC., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-04703-PKC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel
entered an order
As follows:
-- There will be a pretrial conference on Dec. 3, 2024 at 4 p.m.
in
Courtroom 11D.
-- The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed Scheduling Order
and
it is a non-starter. If the parties have not already exchanged
initial disclosures, they shall do so by Dec. 2, 2024.
-- The Court has no intention of signing a blank check for more
than
ten depositions.
-- For any deposition in excess of ten, when, as, and if it
becomes
necessary, a party may apply to conduct the deposition setting
forth the identity of each witness, and the factual basis for
the
claimed need for the witness must be detailed with specificity.
Interrogatories will be permitted only in accordance with Local
Civil Rule 33.3.
Micromobility.com provides electric micro-mobility services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WdRuzk at no extra
charge.[CC]
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Schelling Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Microvast 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
ruling on the motion to dismiss the Schelling class suit is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.
The Company and certain of its officers have also been named as
defendants in a putative class action complaint by a shareholder of
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas under the caption Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 4:23-cv-04565 (S.D. Tex.) (filed Dec. 5, 2023) (the "Schelling
Action"). The complaint alleges that defendants violated certain
federal securities laws by making misleading statements regarding
the receipt of a conditional grant from the United States
Department of Energy, the Company's profitability, and the nature
of Company-associated operations in China.
On March 1, 2024, the court appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed class of Company investors.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on May 13, 2024, and Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2024.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 10,
2024.
The Court has not ruled yet on the motion.
Microvast is a lithium-ion battery technology company which
designs, develops, and manufactures battery components and systems,
primarily for electric commercial vehicles and utility-scale energy
storage systems.[BN]
MINNEAPOLIS RAG STOCK: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Minneapolis Rag Stock
Company. The case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Minneapolis Rag Stock
Company doing business as: Ragstock, Case No. 0:24-cv-01319-PAM-JFD
(D. Minn., Nov. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Minneapolis Rag Stock Company doing business as Ragstock --
https://ragstock.com/ -- is a family clothing store that stocks men
s, women s and children s clothing lines and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street
55402, Suite 101
St. Michael, MN 55330
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Patrick W Michenfelder, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
222 South Ninth Street, Ste. 1600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Fax: (763) 226-2515
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
- and -
Chad Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55376
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Corsi Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Peter Corsi, individually, and others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No.
3:24-cv-09905 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08190-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5297
Email: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Karl Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Erik A. Karl, Julie Karl, individually, and
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, DOES 1-50, Case No.
1:24-cv-02985 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Nov. 20, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08189-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dennis F O Brien, Esq.
DENNIS F O BRIEN PA
2012 S. Tollgate Road, Suite 209
Bel Air, MD 21015
Phone: (410) 420-7411
Fax: (410) 420-6647
Email: obie26@aol.com
MORGAN STANLEY: Mckinney Sues Over Unlawful Conduct
---------------------------------------------------
Mark E. Mckinney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY
LLC, and E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, MARK E. MCKINNEY, Case No.
1:24-cv-08860 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought to recover
damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to
their Bank Deposit Program, which transferred idle customer cash
into interest-bearing "cash sweep" accounts.
Under the Bank Deposit Program, Defendants swept customers' idle
cash deposits into separate accounts that are highly lucrative for
Defendants and their affiliate banks but pay unreasonably low,
below market interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants use
the Bank Deposit Program to generate massive revenue for themselves
at the expense of their customers.
The Defendants' use of the Bank Deposit Program to enrich
themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates breaches their
fiduciary duties and contractual obligations to customers and
violates several state and federal laws including the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute") and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act").
The Defendants' Bank Deposit Program has come under federal
regulatory scrutiny. In August 2024, Morgan Stanley announced that
the Bank Deposit Program was under investigation by the SEC for
potential violations of the federal statue governing the conduct of
investment advisors, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was an E*TRADE account holder.
Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that conducts
business throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott I. Dion, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
Email: acohen@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
1575 McFarland Road, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15216
Phone: (412) 391-5164
Fax: (412) 471-1033
Email: yateslaw@aol.com
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Panorama Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natera 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 consolidated Panorama marketing
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
In February 2022, two purported class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. Each suit was filed by an
individual patient alleging various causes of action related to the
marketing of Panorama and seeking, among other relief, class
certification, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.
These matters have been consolidated.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit,
which resulted in the plaintiffs filing an amended complaint in
April 2023.
Natera is a clinical genetic testing company that specializes in
non-invasive, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing technology.[BN]
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Patient Billing Class Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Natera 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 patient billing class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
In November 2021, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, by a patient alleging various
causes of action relating to the Company's patient billing and
seeks, among other relief, class certification, injunctive relief,
restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys'’ fees, and costs. In
May 2023, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.
In July 2023, the plaintiff filed analogous claims in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Mateo, and subsequently filed an
amended claim with an additional plaintiff.
Based on the additional plaintiff, the case was transferred back to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The parties subsequently agreed that claims brought by the original
plaintiff be remanded back to the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, and that the action be stayed pending the
outcome of the action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Natera is a clinical genetic testing company that specializes in
non-invasive, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing technology.[BN]
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend PGT-A Class Suit in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natera 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 faces
the PGT-A class suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
In October 2024, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, by patients alleging various causes of
action relating to the Company's preimplantation genetic test for
aneuploidies ("PGT-A").
They request, among other relief, class certification, injunctive
relief, restitution and/or disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and
costs.
Natera is a clinical genetic testing company that specializes in
non-invasive, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing technology.[BN]
NATERA INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natera 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 a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain of its management in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, asserting claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.
The complaint, filed in April 2022 and amended in October 2022 (to
include, among others, the claims raised in the lawsuit discussed
in the preceding paragraph), alleges, among other things, that the
management defendants made materially false or misleading
statements, and/or omitted material information that was required
to be disclosed, about certain of the Company's products and
operations.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, which was
granted in part and denied in part.
Natera is a clinical genetic testing company that specializes in
non-invasive, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) testing technology.[BN]
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Amended Scheduling Order Entered in Kolev Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOYAN KOLEV, et al., v.
NATIONAL FREIGHT, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-15107-JHR-EAP
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an amended
scheduling order:
1. Defendants' request for leave to file a motion for discovery
sanctions is denied without prejudice to be renewed, if
necessary, after resolution of class certification motions.
2. Class certification motions shall be filed with the Clerk of
the
Court no later than Dec. 3, 2024. Opposition briefs shall be
filed no later than Dec. 23, 2024. Reply briefs shall be
filed
no later than Dec. 30, 2024. This Order is subject to the
Individual Rules and Procedures (if any) of the presiding
District Judge.
3. All other case management deadlines set forth in ECF No. 90
shall remain in effect.
4. Any application for an extension of time beyond the deadlines
set herein shall be made prior to expiration of the period
sought to be extended and shall disclose in the application
all
such extensions previously obtained, the precise reasons
necessitating the application showing good cause under FED.
R.
CIV. P. 16(b), and whether adversary counsel consent to the
application. The scheduling deadlines set herein will not be
extended unless good cause is shown. All applications
regarding
motions returnable before a District Judge shall be presented
to
the District Judge.
National Freight provides logistics services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zoLYdu at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATURESTAR NORTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Little Due Feb. 2, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRI LITTLE, v.
NATURESTAR NORTH AMERICA, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
1:22-cv-00232-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Erica Grosjean
entered a scheduling conference order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures are due Dec. 3, 2024.
-- All non-expert discovery shall be completed no later than Aug.
18,
2025.
-- Initial expert witness disclosures shall be served no later
than
Sept. 19, 2025.
-- The deadline for moving for class certification is Feb. 2,
2026.
-- Remaining dates will be scheduled following the resolution of
the
motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VphnFg at no extra
charge.[CC]
NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., and
NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD
(M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting unopposed motion for leave to file a reply in support of
plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On Oct. 14, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for class
certification. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed their
response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Defendants raise new alleged facts and legal arguments in their
Opposition brief, including
(1) eight previously undisclosed statements by employees of
Defendants signed in March and April of 2024 regarding
their
experiences in the Fellowship Program at issue;
(2) that nurses may have varied amounts of damages which cannot
be
uniformly determined; and
(3) that the value of the Fellowship Program cannot be
uniformly
determined.
The Plaintiff requests a Reply brief to respond to the new legal
arguments and alleged facts in Defendants' Response in Opposition
in order to aid the Court's resolution of Plaintiff’s motion.
NCH is a not-for-profit, multi-facility healthcare system located
in Naples, Florida.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PckCsC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Joshua R. Cottle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, Esq.
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
jcottle@nka.com
- and -
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Jeffrey Newsome, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
rachel@towardsjustice.org
NEW YORK, NY: Edris Sues Over Failure to Protect Rights
-------------------------------------------------------
Nagwa Edris, and others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEW YORK,
P.O. SAMANTHA GUZMAN (SHIELD NO. 6452), SGT. AMPARO HERNANDEZ, P.O.
JOHN DOE, P.O. JANE ROE and BRIAN HALL, Case No. 1:24-cv-08088
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought to address the systemic
failure of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") and the
City of New York to protect the rights the Plaintiff, a Muslim,
Arab woman of Egyptian descent, and others who are similarly
situated to be free from religious, racial, ethnic and gender
discrimination.
While this systemic failure can manifest itself in various ways, in
this instance, here, it was manifested in the arrest of the
Plaintiff without probable cause and the callous deprivation of her
right, as guaranteed, inter alia, by the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution, to practice her Muslim faith by wearing
a head-covering worn by Muslim women known as a hijab, without
disruption or exposure of her uncovered head to the general public.
In particular, by forcing Plaintiff to remove her hijab publicly,
the individually-named NYPD defendants ("NYPD Officers") unlawfully
targeted Plaintiff because of her gender, as well as race,
ethnicity and religion, humiliating her in the process.
By failing to properly investigate the objective fact that
Plaintiff had valid and active motor vehicle insurance at the time
of her encounter with members of the New York, which negated all
probable cause for arrest, and by failing to honor her religious
practice, the NYPD Officers are personally liable to Plaintiff for
violating her rights. By causing the aforementioned systemic
failure through its custom, practice and policy of encouraging,
allowing and condoning such violations of rights by NYPD officers
and encouraging, allowing and condoning such religious, racial,
ethnic and gender discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a forty-nine year old Muslim, Arab woman of
Egyptian descent, who is a United States citizen.
CITY OF NEW YORK is a municipal entity within New York State that
maintains, manages and operates NYPD as one of its municipal
departments.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karl J. Ashanti, Esq.
MUSA-OBREGON LAW, P.C.
55-21 69th Street, 2nd Floor
Maspeth, NY 11378
Phone: (718) 803-1000
Email: K.ashanti@musa-obregon.com
NEW YORK, NY: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.A. individually, et al.,
v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-03810-JHR-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered
a general pretrial management order:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those relating
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Magistrate Judge Cave and must comply with her
Individual Practices, available on the Court’s website at
https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-sarah-l-cave.
-- The counsel shall meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R.
Civ.
P. 26(f) no later than Dec. 6, 2024. No later than Dec. 13,
2024,
the parties shall file a Report of Rule 26(f) Meeting and
Proposed
Case Management Plan, via ECF, signed by counsel for each
party.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1hbdSK at no extra
charge.[CC]
OLD COPPER: Krantz Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------
Jordan Krantz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OLD COPPER COMPANY, INC. f/k/a J.C. PENNEY COMPANY,
INC., and PENNEY OPCO LLC, d/b/a JCPENNEY, Case 2:24-cv-10031 (C.D.
Cal., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought against the Defendants as a result
of the Defendants deceptive pricing scheme.
The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") created a rule prohibiting the
practice. The FTC identified this practice as a form of "deceptive
pricing" that denies consumers the value of the bargain that they
thought they were receiving.
JCPenney has engaged in just such a deceptive pricing scheme.
JCPenney advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts on many
of its products, supposedly offering discounts of up to 70% off
JCPenney's self-created, fictitious reference prices. JCPenney
represents to consumers that its reference price is the "regular"
or "normal" price of the item, which functions as a new and
inflated reference point from which consumers discount their
"savings" on various products.
JCPenney's reference prices are false because JCPenney rarely, if
ever, offers the products for the reference price. Instead, the
inflated reference prices allow JCPenney to continually advertise
"sale" events and product discounts in order to induce consumers
into purchasing products. In reality, the "sale" price is the price
at which JCPenney regularly sells the product, but the consumer has
been tricked into thinking she found a great discount.
JCPenney's practice of falsely inflating reference prices in order
to give the illusion of higher value, bigger discounts, and a false
sense of time pressure, constitutes false advertising, and is an
unfair and deceptive practice under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased falsely discounted products on JCPenney's
website.
Old Copper Company, Inc. f/k/a J.C. Penney Company, Inc. was a
Delaware corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
Leslie Pescia, Esq.
745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: 212-532-1091
Facsimile: 646-417-5967
Email: kmclean@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
OXFORD HEALTH: Bid to Exclude Expert Opinions Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOLLY C., et al., v.
OXFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, INC., Case No. 1:21-cv-10144-PGG-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order denying
Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Fox's opinions is denied.
-- This means only that the Court "may utilize" his testimony "in
deciding whether the requisites of Rule 23 have been met." I
express no opinion as to whether that testimony, together with
the other evidence adduced by plaintiffs, adequately
demonstrates
the numerosity of the proposed subclasses. That determination
is
for the District Judge.
-- "[T]o the extent that flaws in expert testimony proffered at
class certification do not warrant that testimony's exclusion
by
the Court as gatekeeper under Daubert at the threshold, those
flaws may nonetheless be considered in the Rule 23 analysis
undertaken by the Court as trier of fact.").
-- After careful review of the parties' papers, I conclude that
Dr.
Fox's opinions are relevant to the pending certification
motion
and that defendant's reliability arguments go to their weight,
not their admissibility. Moreover, because the challenged
expert
evidence is offered in support of class certification, as to
which the District Judge is both gatekeeper and factfinder,
"there is no risk of jury confusion,"
By motion dated March 22, 2024, plaintiffs seek to certify a class
consisting of
"All persons who were covered under an Oxford group health
insurance plan in New York, were diagnosed with one of five
specified eating disorders (EDs), received outpatient
nutritional
counseling from Nov. 30, 2015 to the present (the Class Period),
and either (a) submitted claims for that counseling, which
Oxford
denied on the ground that it was "not a covered benefit" (the
Denied Claims Subclass), or (b) did not submit claims (the No
Claims Subclass)."
Oxford provides life, accident and health insurance services to its
clients.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GsmzWb at no extra
charge.[CC]
PATH PROPERTIES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property
------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf
of all other similarly situated v. PATH PROPERTIES LLC, a New
Jersey Limited Liability Company Case No. 1:24-cv-10585 (D.N.J.,
Nov. 19, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination ("LAD") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible
property.
The Plaintiff has visited the Property – and the tenant spaces
– on several occasions, her last visit as a patron of the
occurred on or about September 19, 2024. The Plaintiff visited the
Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of
the goods and services offered to the public within but found that
the Property was littered with violations of the ADA, both in
architecture and policy.
The ADA has been law for over 20 years and the Property remains non
compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable
grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to
discrimination by the Defendant.
Following any resolution of this matter Plaintiff will ensure that
the Defendant undertakes the remedial work that is required to cure
existing violations, under the appropriate standard and in
compliance with the ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person.
PATH PROPERTIES LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public
accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq.
SHADINGER LAW, LLC
717 E. Elmer Street, Suite 7
Vineland, NJ 08360
Phone: (609) 319-5399
Email: js@shadingerlaw.com
PIONEER BANCORP: Brandes Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp 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
Brandes class suit is stayed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class
action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County. The
first complaint was filed by Brandes & Yancy PLLC and Ricardo's
Restaurant, Inc., two alleged clients of Southwestern which seek to
assert claims on behalf of all current or former Southwestern
clients based on the same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite
Solutions complaints as described above, and the alleged taxes
sought in the DOJ, Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
The complaint asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for
conversion, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, tortious interference with contract, aiding and abetting
fraud, and a declaratory judgment.
It seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaints.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.
The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26,
2023.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed
their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the
Pioneer Parties.
On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the
response of the plaintiffs.
On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its own motion,
staying both actions pending the outcome of the ongoing,
earlier-filed federal litigation described above.
On July 31, 2024, the parties submitted a joint written update to
the court concerning the status of the federal litigation.
These actions remain stayed pending the outcome of that
litigation.
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. operates principally through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pioneer Bank, National Association, which operates 22
retail banking offices in Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady and Warren Counties, as well as a wealth management
office in Columbia County in New York.
PIONEER BANCORP: Court Stays O'Malley's Oven Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Bancorp, 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
O'Malley's Oven LLC class suit is stayed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York for Albany County.
On September 2, 2022, two substantially similar putative class
action complaints were filed against the Pioneer Parties in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York for Albany County.
The complaint was filed by O'Malley's Oven LLC and Legat
Architects, Inc., two alleged clients of MyPayrollHR.Com, LLC and
ProData Payroll Services, Inc., affiliates of Cloud Payroll, LLC
(collectively, "Cloud Payroll").
The two named plaintiffs in the complaint seek to assert claims on
behalf of all current or former Cloud Payroll clients based on the
same set of facts as the DOJ, AXH, and Granite Solutions complaints
as described above, and the alleged taxes sought in the DOJ,
Southwestern, and NatPay complaints.
It asserts claims against the Pioneer Parties for conversion, gross
negligence, unjust enrichment, money had and received, tortious
interference with contract, aiding and abetting fraud, and a
declaratory judgment.
It also seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, plus
pre-judgment interest, costs, expenses, disbursements, and
reasonable attorneys' fees.
The Pioneer Parties acknowledged service of the complaints as of
December 30, 2022.
On February 28, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed motions to dismiss
the complaints.
On April 7, 2023, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints that
assert the same causes of action but include additional
allegations.
On April 27, 2023, the Pioneer Parties elected to withdraw their
pending motions to dismiss and file renewed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints.
The Pioneer Parties filed renewed motions to dismiss on June 26,
2023.
On August 25, 2023, plaintiffs in both putative class actions filed
their responses to the renewed motions to dismiss filed by the
Pioneer Parties.
On October 6, 2023, the Pioneer Parties filed their reply to the
response of the plaintiffs.
On February 1, 2024, the court entered an order, on its own motion,
staying both actions pending the outcome of the ongoing,
earlier-filed federal litigation described above.
On July 31, 2024, the parties submitted a joint written update to
the court concerning the status of the federal litigation.
These actions remain stayed pending the outcome of that
litigation.
Pioneer Bancorp Inc. operates principally through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Pioneer Bank, National Association, which operates 22
retail banking offices in Albany, Greene, Rensselaer, Saratoga,
Schenectady and Warren Counties, as well as a wealth management
office in Columbia County in New York.
PREMERA BLUE: Deferred Class Cert. Bid Renoted to March 14, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.B. and M.B.,
individually and on behalf of their minor child A.B.; C.M. and
A.H., individually and on behalf of their minor child J.M.; and on
behalf of others similarly situated, v. PREMERA BLUE CROSS, Case
No. 2:23-cv-00953-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Court entered a minute
order as follows:
-- Plaintiffs' deferred motion for class certification, is
renoted
to Friday, March 14, 2025.
-- This case remains set for a seven-day jury trial on Monday,
Sept.
15, 2025, and the deadlines contained in the Minute Order
entered
May 30, 2024, for the filing of an agreed pretrial order,
trial
briefs, proposed voir dire questions, and proposed jury
instructions shall remain in full force and effect.
-- The Pretrial Conference currently set for Friday, Sept. 5,
2025,
shall commence at 10:00 a.m.
Premera is a not-for-profit Blue Cross Blue Shield licensed health
insurance company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iN7LPo at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Morciglio Sues Over Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------
Einaya Morciglio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No.
1:24-cv-08849 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024), is brought to remedy the
deceptive and misleading business practices of the Defendant with
respect to the marketing and sale of Defendant's Tampax products
throughout the state of New York and throughout the country
(hereinafter the "Products").
The Defendant improperly, deceptively, and misleadingly labeled and
marketed their Products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by
omitting and not disclosing to consumers on their packaging that
the Products are contaminated with or at the risk of being
contaminated with unsafe levels of lead, which is a powerful
neurotoxin that is known to cause inter alia cognitive deficits,
mental illness, dementia, and hypertension.
The Products' contamination is particularly egregious given the
potentially severe and irreversible consequences of lead
consumption. The Defendant fails to disclose and materially omits
on the Products' packaging that the Products contain, or are at
risk of containing, Lead.
The lead contained in the Products is particularly concerning to
consumers because the Products' intended use is to be inserted into
a female's vagina. As a result, the lead in the products can
directly enter the bloodstream. The Products' contamination is
particularly egregious given the potentially severe and
irreversible consequences of Lead consumption and how the Defendant
touts on its website how it prioritizes and tests for safety.
Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant
to sell products that are safe and free from harmful known
substances, including Lead. Plaintiff and those similarly situated
(hereinafter "Class Members") certainly expect that the healthcare
products they purchase to put inside their bodies will not contain,
or risk containing, any knowingly harmful substances that cause
injury. Unfortunately for consumers, like Plaintiff, the Products
they purchased contained, or were at risk of containing, Lead.
Plaintiff's independent testing confirmed and demonstrated the
presence of Lead in the Products.
The Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products
based upon Defendant's marketing and advertising campaign. Given
that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products
based on Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff
and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium
paid, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products that contained Lead.
The Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, and distributes
the Products throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
dlevin@lfsblaw.com
- and -
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
REGAL CINEMAS: Settlement Deal in Jones Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIM JONES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. REGAL CINEMAS,
INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-11145-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Margaret Garnett entered an order granting preliminary approval of
class action settlement agreement, certifying settlement class,
appointing class representative, appointing class counsel, and
approving notice plan.
1. Terms and phrases in this Order shall have the same meaning
as
ascribed to them in the Settlement Agreement.
2. The Parties have moved the Court for an order approving the
settlement of the Action in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, which, together with the documents incorporated
therein, sets forth the terms and conditions for a proposed
settlement and dismissal of the Action with prejudice.
3. This Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject
matter of this action and over all Parties to the Action.
4. The Court finds that, subject to the Final Approval Hearing,
the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
within
the range of possible approval, and in the best interests of
the
Settlement Class set forth below.
5. The Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on
March 5, 2025, at 9:30 a.m.
6. For purposes of settlement only, the Court conditionally
certifies the following Settlement Class as defined in the
Settlement Agreement:
"[A]ll individuals in the United States who purchased
electronic
tickets to any film screening in any of Defendant's cinemas
located in New York state from Defendant’s Website from
July 31,
2023, to and through July 15, 2024, using the guest checkout
Process."
Regal owns and operates movie theaters.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g0mDhw at no extra
charge.[CC]
REMEDY TAX SOLUTIONS: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Remedy Tax Solutions
LLC. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Remedy Tax Solutions LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00276-RWS (N.D. Ga., Nov. 20, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Remedy Tax Solutions -- https://www.remedytaxsolutions.com/ -- are
a team of industry experts dedicated to tax resolution.[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
RICKY DIXON: Must File Class Cert Response by Dec. 17
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilson, et al., v. Dixon,
et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-24253 (S.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 31, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Kathleen M. Williams entered an order granting the
Defendants request for an additional two weeks to respond to the
Plaintiffs' class action complaint and the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
-- The Defendants shall file their responses on or before Dec. 17,
2024.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
SAINT XAVIER: Failed to Protect Customers' Info, Ames Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
SARA AMES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SAINT XAVIER UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-12027 (N.D.
Ill., Nov. 21, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to prevent
the data breach because it did not adhere to commonly accepted
security standards and failed to detect that its databases were
subject to a security breach.
According to the complaint, on Oct. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff
received a breach notification letter from the Defendant indicating
that her Personally Identifiable Information (PII) was compromised
during the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress and anxiety
knowing that her name and Social Security number may have been
impacted.
In the ordinary course of applying for admission to SXU, each
applicant must provide (and Plaintiff did provide) Defendant with
Personally Identifiable Information including his or her Social
Security number, financial information and contact information.
SXU's Privacy Policy touts that "Saint Xavier University takes
extensive precautions to protect your personal information both
online and offline. Whenever Saint Xavier University collects
sensitive personal or financial information via its website, that
information is encrypted and transmitted to us in a secure way."
The Defendant further represented that the information compromised
included "Social Security numbers, driver's license or state
identification card numbers, passport information, financial
account information, medical information, biometric information,
health insurance information, student identification numbers, dates
of birth, payment card information, and account access information"
may have been compromised by the Data Breach".
According to a notice of data breach filed with the Attorney
General of Maine, the Data Breach has affected 212,267
individuals.
SXU is a four-year private university. SXU represents, on its
website, that it "educates persons to search for truth, to think
critically, to communicate effectively and to serve wisely and
compassionately in support of human dignity and the common
good."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
SELENE FINANCE: Court Certifies Two Classes in Cruz Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLARISSA CRUZ, KATRINA
MARTIN, and ROBERT ALLAN MARTIN individually and behalf of others
similarly situated, v. SELENE FINANCE, LP, Case No.
2:23-cv-14297-AMC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Aileen Cannon entered
an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class.
1. Florida State Law Class:
"All Florida residential mortgagors to whom Selene sent a
letter
substantially similar or materially identical to the Final
Letter warning of acceleration of the home loan and/or
commencement of foreclosure proceedings upon less than full
payment of the "amount due" or "default amount," within the
applicable statute of limitations period (the "Florida
Class")."
2. FDCPA Sub-Class:
"All Florida residential mortgagors whose mortgage servicing
was
transferred to Selene while in a state of default to whom
Selene
sent a letter substantially similar or materially identical
to
the Final Letter warning of acceleration of the home loan
and/or
commencement of foreclosure proceedings upon less than full
payment of the "amount due" or "default amount" within the
applicable statute of limitations period (the "FDCPA Class").
The relevant period for the Florida Class begins on Aug. 16, 2021,
and the relevant period for the FDCPA Class begins on Aug. 16,
2022; both class periods extend through the date of notice.
1. Should circumstances change or new record evidence come to
light
with respect to the propriety of class certification or the
adequacy of the class definitions, the parties may move at a
later date to decertify or modify the classes as defined in
this
Order. ("Even after a certification order is entered, the
judge
remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent
developments in the litigation.").
2. On or before Dec. 12, 2024, the parties shall jointly file a
Status Report with proposed remaining deadlines and any other
information pertinent to managing this case going forward.
The
temporary stay on deadlines remains in effect pending further
Court order.
Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that the class mechanism
is a superior method of adjudicating their claims, all of which
revolve around Defendant’s uniform debt collection Notice.
The alternative to class certification here—piecemeal litigation
by individual loan holders—is less efficient than resolving all
claims collectively in one action.
In addition, Plaintiffs already have shown that the potential class
members can be readily identified through Defendant’s internal
databases and ultimately notified of this case. And, although some
potential members of the class may wish to pursue their claims
individually to maximize the award of damages, those members can
protect their interests by opting out of the class as permitted by
law and this Court’s orders.
The Plaintiffs have adequately alleged injuries sufficient to
confer Article III standing for the claims alleged, and they have
otherwise satisfied the requirements for class certification under
Rule 23.
The Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on May 20, 2024 [ECF No.
47]. The Motion is ripe for adjudication [ECF Nos. 75, 79].
Selene operates as a residential mortgage company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5xnKNH at no extra
charge.[CC]
SENSIO INC: Brandon Class Action Referred to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DELANA BRANDON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SENSIO, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02859-RA-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Ronnie Abrams entered an order referring the Brandon case to
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave for the following purposes:
-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive
pretrial motions, and settlement.
-- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Motion to Stay
Discovery.
-- Dispositive Motion (i.e., motion requiring a Report and
Recommendation) Particular Motion: Motion for Class
Certification
if filed.
Sensio is a provider of fall prevention, silent nurse call system
and social care technologies.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JS6hhS at no extra
charge.[CC]
SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Class Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seritage Growth Properties 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 Xhengxu He class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On July 1, 2024, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Zhengxu He, Trustee of the He &
Fang 2005 Revocable Living Trust v. Seritage Growth Properties,
Case No. 1:24:CV:05007, alleging that the Company, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer
violated the federal securities laws.
The complaint seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company
securities between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning
the Company's alleged lack of effective internal controls regarding
the identification and review of impairment indicators for
investments in real estate and the Company’s value and projected
gross proceeds of certain real estate assets. The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be proven at
trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the plaintiff
and class counsel, and such other and further relief as the court
may deem just and proper.
The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Seritage operates as a real estate
investment trust. Its Class A Common shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "SRG."[BN]
SET FORTH INC: Martin Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SET FORTH, INC. The
case is styled as Jill Martin, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-11950 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 20, 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: Dekenipp Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Dekenipp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11922 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 19, 2024), is brought stemming from the cyberattack and Data
Breach, during which cybercriminals illegally obtained the
sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and Class Members,
including, at a minimum, names, addresses, and Social Security
numbers ("PII"), and to address Set Forth's failure to adequately
safeguard Class Members' PII and its failure to notify Plaintiff
and Class Members that their information was likely accessed by an
unknown third party, including the specific types of information
compromised.
Set Forth reported being subjected to a cyberattack in May 2024
(the "Data Breach"). The breach compromised sensitive information,
including customer names, addresses, and Social Security numbers.
According to Set Forth's notice, the breach affected the personal
data of over 1.5 million customers. Because of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket
expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy
or mitigate the effects of the attack and the substantial and
imminent risk of identity theft.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and profiting from the PII of
Plaintiff and Class members, Set Forth assumed legal duties to
those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion. Set Forth admits its systems,
which contain Plaintiff and Class Member's PII, were attacked.
The compromise of this PII was a direct result of Set Forth's
negligent and/or careless actions, omissions, and failure to
adequately protect the PII of the Plaintiff and Class Members.
Moreover, despite Set Forth's failure to prevent the Data Breach,
it has not yet taken sufficient steps to notify affected
individuals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been a longstanding customer of Set Forth.
Set Forth, Inc.is a Delaware Corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
David Lawler, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
dlawler@tzlegal.com
- and -
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 254-6808
Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
SET FORTH: Gravely Sues Over Cyberattack and Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Gravely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11957 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 20, 2024), is brought stemming from the cyberattack and Data
Breach, during which cybercriminals illegally obtained the
sensitive personal information of the Plaintiff and Class Members,
including, at a minimum, names, addresses, and Social Security
numbers ("PII"), and to address Set Forth's failure to adequately
safeguard Class Members' PII and its failure to notify Plaintiff
and Class Members that their information was likely accessed by an
unknown third party, including the specific types of information
compromised.
The Plaintiff and Class members provided certain Personally
Identifying Information ("PII") to entities that do business with
Defendant. As a debt relief service provided provider with an acute
interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the PII entrusted to
it, Defendant is well-aware of the numerous data breaches that have
occurred throughout the United States and its responsibility for
safeguarding PII in its
possession.
On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff received a breach notification
letter from Defendant indicating that her PII was compromised
during the Data Breach. According to the Notice Letter, the Data
Breach may have exposed Plaintiff's name, address, and Social
Security number. As a result of the Data Breach Plaintiff has
suffered severe emotional distress and anxiety knowing that her
name and Social Security number have been impacted.
The Plaintiff is very concerned about the theft of her PII and
anticipates spending substantial amounts of time and energy aimed
at thwarting adverse effects as a result of the Data Breach. As a
direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions and omissions in
failing to protect Plaintiff's PII, Plaintiff and the Class have
been damaged, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their PII to the Defendant.
Defendant represents that it "has been serving debt relief service
providers with robust solutions that include CRM, marketing
automation, payment processing and dedicated account management
offerings."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: 215-592-1500
Fax: 215-592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road - Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Phone: 516-874-4505
Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
SET FORTH: Mason Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Mason, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-11943 (N.D. Ill.,
Nov. 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients'
customers.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual
understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain
personally identifiable information and protected health
information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members (defined
below), who are (or were) customers at Defendant's clients.
The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and
Class Members' full names, addresses, and Social Security numbers
("personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The PII
compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals
and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII
for its value to identity thieves.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable
and preventable cyber-attack, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided their PII to the Defendant.
Set Forth is a company that provides online account administration
services to consumers enrolled in debt relief programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
fburne@ForThePeople.com
SIEMENS MOBILITY: Keopadubsy Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHAMKOTH KEOPADUBSY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-01412-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff, on March 6, 2025, will move this Court, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, for an order:
1. Determining that a class action is proper as to the claims
for
violation of Labor Code sections 510, 558, and 1194,
violation
of Labor Code section 226(a), and violation of Business &
Professions Code section 17200, et seq., contained in the
First
Amended Class and Representative Action Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, on the grounds that:
(1) the classes are so numerous that joinder of all members
is
impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common
to
the classes; (3) Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the
claims of
the classes; and (4) Plaintiff will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class members.
2. Determining that class treatment is appropriate under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
3. Certifying the following classes:
-- Total Hours Worked Wage Statement Class
"All current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants
in the State of California who were paid overtime and/or
shift differential wages at any time during April 6, 2019
to
the present";
-- Overtime Wage Statement Class
"All current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants
in the State of California who were paid overtime wages
at
any time during April 6, 2019 to the present"; and
-- Overtime Regular Rate Class
"All current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants
in the State of California who were paid overtime wages
and
non-discretionary remuneration, including without
limitation, shift differential wages, during the same
workweek, at any time during April 6, 2016 to Oct. 14,
2019".
4. Finding Plaintiff Khamkoth Keopadubsy to be an adequate
representative and certifying him as the class
representative.
5. Finding Plaintiff's counsel and their respective firms,
namely
Larry W. Lee, Max W. Gavron, and Mai Tulyathan of Diversity
Law
Group, P.C., and Williams L. Marder of Polaris Law Group as
adequate class counsel and certifying them as class counsel.
Siemens is innovating areas of rolling stock, rail automation, and
electrification, turnkey systems, intelligent traffic system.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pp5sxk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Max W. Gavron, Esq.
Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
mgavron@diversitylaw.com
ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP
501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
SPIKED WIRELESS: Faces Gomez Labor Suit in Cal. Super.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPIKED WIRELESS, LLC,
A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. The case is captioned as
David Gomez, and all others similarly situated v. SPIKED WIRELESS,
LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al., Case No.
24CV020580 (Cal. Super., Oct. 10, 2024).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Christopher E. Krueger.
The nature of suit states Employment Complaint Case.
Spiked Wireless is a telecommunications company that provides
wireless internet services to residential and commercial
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY GROMBACHER LLP
Website: www.bradleygrombacher.com
31365 Oak Crest Dr, Ste 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361-5600
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 271-7589
E-mail: kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
SPRINKLR INC: Marcheschi Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE BOSHART, v.
SPRINKLR, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06132-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order appointing Anthony
Marcheschi as lead plaintiff, and Pomerantz as lead counsel.
By Dec. 3, 2024, the Plaintiff shall file a letter (1) seeking
leave to file an amended complaint and proposing a date by which to
do so or (2) stating that he does not seek to do so.
The Clerk of Court is directed to (1) amend the caption to read "In
re Sprinklr, Inc. Securities Litigation," (2) remove Shane Boshart
as a party on the docket, (3) designate Marcheschi as a "Lead
Plaintiff" on the docket and (4) close the motions at Dkts. 18 and
21.
Marcheschi timely filed his motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff on October 15, 2024. As such, Marcheschi has satisfied
the first requirement to become the presumptive lead plaintiff.
The case action was originally commenced by Shane Boshart, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Defendants Sprinklr, Inc. and certain of its officers, alleging
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
Pomerantz has substantial experience in the prosecution of
securities fraud class actions, having served as lead or co-lead
counsel in many securities class actions.
Sprinklr is an American software company that develops a software
as a service (SaaS) customer experience management (CXM) platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IIoLDt at no extra
charge.[CC]
ST. JOHN'S: Seeks Summary Judgment Pre-Motion Conference
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Shrikant Barot, v. St.
John's University, Case No. 1:22-cv-04823-NRM-LKE (E.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting a pre-motion
conference to discuss its intention to file a motion for summary
judgment.
First, it is undisputed that Plaintiff is the only party to the
agreement who promised not to perform duties in excess of twenty
hours per week. Thus, he cannot establish any breach by St. John's
University. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot prove that he performed
duties in excess of twenty hours per week
The Plaintiff applied to SJU in fall or winter 2014 and commenced
this action in 2022, more than three years after he was a
prospective student. Accordingly, his claim is time barred and
should be dismissed on summary judgment.
Finally, the Plaintiff alleges discrimination based on his visa
status yet also alleges that all GAs, whether on a visa or not,
were subject to the same contract and the same issues.
In other words, Plaintiff claims equal treatment for all, not
unequal treatment. For example, when asked if F1 visa holders and
the non-F1-visa holders that were graduate assistants were treated
differently with respect to reimbursement for tuition credits,
Plaintiff admitted "no. [t]he tuition credits would be the same for
everybody." Thus, his discrimination claim fails as a matter of
law.
The Plaintiff, who was on an F-1 student visa, brings this putative
class action on behalf of other GAs for breach of contract and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights law, and the
New York General Business Law. No class has been certified. St.
John's seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims prior to any
ruling on class certification.
St. John's University is a private, coeducational Roman Catholic
and Vincentian University that was founded in 1870.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UPfAev at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Anthony, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022.3298
Telephone: (212) 471-4404
E-mail: wanthony@littler.com
SUELLE CORP: Gomberg Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUELLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-06191 (E.D. Pa., Nov. 19, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.joanshepp.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Suelle Corporation is in the Women's Clothing Stores industry.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tobia, Esq.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Tel: (215) 981-5400
Email: robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
TAKARA SAKE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Response
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAKARA SAKE USA
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulate
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1 that the deadline for Defendant
Takara to respond to Plaintiff Colby Tunick's Motion for Class
Certification be extended to Dec. 20, 2024 and that Plaintiff's
deadline for filing its reply be extended to Jan. 17, 2025.
The current deadline for Takara Sake's response is Dec. 12, 2024,
and Plaintiff's Reply is Jan. 9, 2025.
The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
currently set for March 6, 2025.
Takara Sake specializes in producing sake, as well as plum, mirin,
shochu, and JPOP.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zkuOBE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph A. Meckes, Esq.
Noriyuki Shimoda, Esq.
Marisol C. Mork, Esq.
Chassica Soo, Esq.
Hiroyuki Yagihashi, Esq.
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
555 California Street, Suite 550
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-0200
Facsimile: (415) 393-9887
E-mail: joseph.meckes@squirepb.com
noriyuki.shimoda@squirepb.com
marisol.mork@squirepb.com
chassica.soo@squirepb.com
hiroyuki.yagihashi@squirepb.com
TARGET CORPORATION: Dawson Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Dylan Dawson and Jamie Brown, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION,
SHIPT, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
CGC-24-618269 was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on Nov. 19, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-08167-TSH.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), violations of California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), violations of California's False Advertising
Law ("FAL"), and Unjust Enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Ana Tagvoryan, Esq.
Victor Sandoval, Esq.
BLANK ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 424.239.3400
Facsimile: 424.239.3434
Email: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com
victor.sandoval@blankrome.com
THOMPSON COBURN: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Martinez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARY MARTINEZ on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. THOMPSON COBURN LLP, and PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, Case No. 4:24-cv-01573 (E.D. Mo., Nov. 22, 2024) arises
from the Defendants negligence in safeguarding specific Personally
Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information.
Between May 28, 2024, and May 29, 2024, an unknown actor grained
access Thompson’s network systems, resulting in the unauthorized
disclosure of the PII and PHI of Plaintiff and the Class Members
(the "Data Breach"). Such information encompasses, but is not
limited to, name, medical record number, patient account number,
prescription/treatment information, clinical information, and
medical provider information ("Private Information").
The Plaintiff and Class Members entrusted their sensitive personal
information to the Defendants, with the mutual understanding that
it would be protected against disclosure. However, due to the Data
Breach, this information was targeted, compromised, and unlawfully
accessed.
The Defendants systematically collected and maintained specific
Private Information of the Plaintiff and the putative Class
Members. These individuals are current or former patients of
Presbyterian and their Private Information includes protected
health information under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.
The Data Breach occurred because Defendants failed to implement
reasonable security procedures and practices, failed to disclose
material facts surrounding its deficient data security protocols,
and failed to timely notify the victims of the Data Breach.
As a result of the Defendants' failure to protect the sensitive
information they were entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff and Class
Members did not receive the benefit of their bargain and now face a
significant risk of medical-related identity theft and fraud,
financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud now and into the
indefinite future, says the suit.
Presbyterian is a healthcare provider that serves patients in New
Mexico. Presbyterian provided Thompson with access to its patients'
files in connection with receiving legal services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
J. Austin Moore, Esq.
Tanner J. Edwards, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
moore@stuevesiegel.com
tanner@stuevesiegel.com
UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, James Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARLISHA L. JAMES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated V. UNIVERSITY HEALTHCARE ALLIANCE (UHA), a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV095252
(Cal. Super., Oct. 10, 2024) alleges that the UHA failed to pay
employees for all hours worked, including minimum and overtime
wages.
In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the Plaintiff
and Class Members were not properly paid for all of their time
worked because the Defendant rounded Plaintiff's and Class Members'
time punches to Defendant's advantage, the suit says.
In addition, the Plaintiff and the Class Members were required to
work off the clock work, including for pre and post shift work, to
clock in, for Covid tests, and during purported meal periods.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the Class Members worked in excess
of eight (8) hours in a day and/or over 40 hours in a workweek, but
were not properly paid for such time at a rate of time and one-half
the employee's regular rate of pay per hour. The Defendants also
failed to incorporate all forms of non-discretionary compensation
into the regular rate, including bonuses, differentials, gift
cards, commissions, and incentives.
The Plaintiff and the Class Members were also regularly required to
work shifts in excess of five hours without being provided a lawful
meal period and, on occasion, over ten hours in a day without being
provided a second lawful meal period as required by law. Although
meal periods were not lawfully provided to Plaintiff and Class
Members, the Defendant had a policy and procedure of auto-deducting
30-minutes from the Plaintiff and Class Members earned hours, the
suit claims.
Ms. James was a non-exempt, hourly employee working for the
Defendant in the State of California during the Class Period. At
various times, she worked on site at Defendant's facilities and
worked from home.
UHA is the medical foundation of Stanford Health Care and Stanford
Medicine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Hawkins
Christina M. Lucio
JAMES HAWKINS, APLC
9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 387-7200
Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
Christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com
WEDRIVEU INC: Faces Baker Class Action Suit Over GIPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BAKER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. WEDRIVEU, INC. and WEDRIVEU AMERICA LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11986
(N.D. Ill., Nov. 21, 2024) is a class action complaint against the
Defendants for their violations of the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act.
As part of its hiring process, WeDriveU requires potential
employees to submit to a preemployment screening during which the
potential employees must disclose their family medical histories.
This practice violates GIPA.
Accordingly to the complaint, WeDriveU performs these examinations
through third-party medical professionals. WeDriveU does not
instruct these medical professionals to refrain from asking
questions regarding family medical history.
During these examinations, WeDriveU asks potential employees
questions about their family medical histories, including family
history of heart disease, cerebral palsy, stroke, or broken bones.
WeDriveU is an employer in Illinois that provides transportation
services to a variety of individual, university, and corporate
customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
S. Jarret Raab, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 525-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
jraab@milberg.com
- and -
Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
George Donnelly, Esq.
FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER
TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP
1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 567-8300
E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com
gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com
WILMINGTON TRUST: Parties Seeks Dec. 23 Class Cert Filing Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARLOW HENRY, on behalf of
the BSC Ventures Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and
on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., BRIAN C. SASS, and E. STOCKTON CROFT IV,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01925-JLH (D. Del.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order as follows:
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification is Dec. 23, 2024.
-- The deadline for the Defendants to file a response is 30 days
after Plaintiff files his motion for class certification; and
the deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply is 15 days after
Defendants file their response.
-- All other deadlines of the Dec. 12, 2023, Scheduling Order
shall
remain the same.
Wilmington is a provider of international corporate and
institutional services, investment management, and private
banking.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xGmcxS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David A. Felice, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 504-6333
E-mail: dfelice@baileyglasser.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esq.
Kirsten A. Zeberkiewicz, Esq.
MORRIS JAMES LLP
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19899
Telephone: (302) 888-6868
E-mail: amanwaring@morrisjames.com
kzeberkiewicz@morrisjames.com
- and -
Kevin J. Connors, Esq.
MARSHALL DENNEHEY, P.C.
Nemours Building
1007 N. Orange St., Suite 600
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 552-4302
E-mail: kjconnors@mdwcg.com
WM TECHNOLOGY INC: Continues to Defend Ishak Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WM Technology 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 Ishak shareholder class
suit in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.
On October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint,
captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., No.
2:24-cv-08959, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming us and certain former and current
officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike
Acquisition Corp. ("Silver Spike") as defendants. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact relating to historical public reporting
of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between
May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.
At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to
make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.
WM Technology, Inc., formerly known as Silver Spike Acquisition
Corp., is an online cannabis marketplace operator based in
California. [BN]
XCEL ENERGY: Class Cert Filing in Parker Modified to Feb. 28, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE PARKER d/b/a SPRING
CREEK RANCH, v. XCEL ENERGY SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-00078-Z-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amanda 'Amy' Burch
entered an order modifying class certification deadlines as
follows:
-- Class certification discovery begins as of Feb. 14, 2025
the date of this Order and closes:
-- The Plaintiffs must designate experts by: Dec. 18, 2024
-- Defendants must designate experts by: Jan. 17, 2025
-- The parties must designate any rebuttal Jan. 31, 2025
experts no later than:
-- The Plaintiffs must file a motion for Feb. 28, 2025
class certification with supporting
evidence, including expert testimony,
if any, and supporting brief, by:
-- The Defendants' response to the motion March 28, 2025
is due by:
-- Any reply is due: April 18, 2025
Xcel provides electric energy services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AbA8yF at no extra
charge.[CC]
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend PRA Violation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies 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 Personality Rights Act
violation class suit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington.
On September 5, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against ZoomInfo Technologies LLC in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington alleging ZoomInfo's use of
individuals' names in public-facing web pages violates the
Washington Personality Rights Act, and seeking statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which
provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN]
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Publicity Statutes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies 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's subsidiary, Datanyze LLC, continues to defend itself from
the publicity statutes violation class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
On October 23, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Datanyze, LLC in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging Datanyze's use of
individuals' names in a free trial violates the right of publicity
statutes in the states of California, Nevada, Indiana, and Alabama,
and seeking statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which
provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN]
Datanyze is the leader in technographics -- real-time insights
based on a company's technology choices and buying signals.
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies 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 a securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.
On September 4, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington. The suit, brought on behalf of
purchasers of Company common stock between November 10, 2020, and
August 5, 2024, alleges that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements related to the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, including in respect of the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's performance, in violation of
§10(b) and §20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, equitable relief, and costs and expenses.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which
provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN]
ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------------
ZoomInfo Technologies 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's subsidiary, Datanyze LLC, continues to defend itself from
Publicity Act violations class suit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
On March 8, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Datanyze, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio alleging Datanyze's use of Ohio residents' names
in a free trial violates the Ohio Right of Publicity Statute, and
seeking statutory damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On November 17, 2023, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
with prejudice, and the plaintiffs have since appealed the
dismissal.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit.
ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc. is a software and data company which
provides data for companies and business individuals.[BN]
Datanyze is the leader in technographics -- real-time insights
based on a company's technology choices and buying signals.
*********
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 ***