/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241204.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, December 4, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 243 Headlines 21 MAIN NORTH: Seeks to Stay Briefing in Class Cert Bid Response A-PLUS CARE: Reid Wins Bid to Certify FLSA Collective ACNE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Labor Suit Settlement for Court Nod ALL AMERICAN: Murphy Sues Over Unlawful Notary Fees ALLEVIATE TAX: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Loses Bid for Class Certification ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ALTICOR INC: Garcia Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ALTRIA GROUP: Class Cert Bids Deadline Modified to June 20, 2025 ALUMNI CLUB: Kulinski Sues Over Unlawfully Misappropriated Tips AMERICAN RED: Faces HDPAC Class Suit Over Earthquake Donations AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Bid to Certify Class & Collective Partly OK'd ANCIENT ORGANICS: Seeks to Strike Effingers' Class Cert Reply ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Over Company Reorganization BASSFORD REMELE: Dingman Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 8th Circuit BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Reilly Class Suit BELSTAFF NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says BOSS PET: Schultz Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website BRAIN DEAD: Website Inaccessible to the Bind, Jones Suit Alleges BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit CALIFORNIA STATE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 29, 2025 CAMMILLA WAMSLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 9 CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Shelby Claims CENGAGE LEARNING: Court Likely to Certify Settlement Class CENTRUS ENERGY: Faces Raps Over Off-Site Contamination CHRIS REYKDAL: Settlement in ND Suit Gets Initial Approval CIGNA CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Stewart Due March 28, 2025 CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Denny Files Suit in M.D. Florida COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Unseal Sealed Docs COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE: Rios Suit Removed to N.D. California CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit CORSA COAL: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, Killinger Suit Alleges COUGAR CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agostini Alleges CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Antitrust Suit CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks to File Memo Under Seal in Antitrust Suit DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert Bid By Dec. 6 DOMINICK R. DALE: Faces Snyder Class Suit Over Legal Malpractice ENSURETY VENTURES: Radvansky Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ERIC EMMERICH: Benitez-Diaz Bid for Class Certification Tossed EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit FARMERS UNION: McBrayer Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. FAST PACE: Appeals Final Approval of Hutchinson Suit Settlement GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Class Settlement in Gann Suit Gets Initial Nod GCP WW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Alleges GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit GRAND DESIGN: Nowak Sues Over Recreational Vehicles' Frame Defect HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosures HF MANAGEMENT: Moore Sues Over Unlawful Compensations HSBC BANK: Oral Argument Set for Jan. 3, 2025 in Ni Class Suit JEREMY BARR: Thurston Files Suit in M.D. Florida JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts JOHNSON, TN: Must File Supplement in Class Suit KEYBANK NA: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule KONICA MINOLTA: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Marquinhos Suit Alleges LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Rescheduled to Dec. 11 LATICO TRAINING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Casino Queen Class Suit LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Giuliano Class Suit LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Tribe Class Suit LOANDEPOT INC: Continues to Defend Kearns Class Suit in California LUCY COOPER'S: Faces Foley Suit Over Minimum Wage Violations LYFT INC: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 6 MACY'S INC: Paya Sues Over False or Misleading Discount MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bardaji Securities Class Suit MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Candelore Class Suit in Calif. MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Oksayan Class Suit in Calif. MDL 2992: Defendants Can File Class Cert Memo Under Seal MIANSAI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says MISSION CEVICHE: Bid for Conditional Collective Certification OK'd NATIONAL POTATO: Pattermann Sues Over Unlawful Conspiracy & Fixing NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply OK'd NE LLC: Doner Seeks to Certify FLSA Restaurant Server Collective NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Greene Suit Due April 11, 2025 NEWELL BRANDS: Amended Complaint Deadline Extended to Dec. 20 NTC MARKETING: Seper Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. OLIN CORP: Miami Products Appeals Denial of Class Suit Settlements ONEPOINT PATIENT: Howey Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI PAC HOUSING: Class Expert Disclosure Cutoff in Hills Due Dec. 13 PACS GROUP: New Orleans Employees' Sues Over False Statements PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Lemon Suit Over Unpaid Military Leave POPULAR INC: Final Settlement Deal Hearing Set for Jan. 27, 2025 PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Stafford Seeks to Certify Issue-Based Class PUTTHUTT NEWPORT: Nixon Sues Over Unpaid Compensations REAL TIME: Jimenez Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina RO HEALTH LLC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ROBINHOOD: Must Depose Plaintiff's Experts by Feb. 14, 2025 ROMEO POWER: Class Distribution Order Entered in Securities Suit RUSS' HOLDING: Kahl Sues Over Unlawful Underpayment SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over IPO SASALA DINING USA: Quintal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in PA SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in TN SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Filing Reset to March 6, 2025 SIENNA MARKETING: Matiatos Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA SIG SAUER: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 8, 2025 STATE FARM: Violates No-Fault Insurance Act, Brown Suit Alleges STUMPTOWN COFFEE: Picon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TARGET CORPORATION: Payton Sues Over Deceptive Practices TASTE BUDS DELI: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class Cert Filing in Holdco Extended to Dec. 18 UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Maintain Docs Publicly Available UNLIMITED PIZZA: Bid for Conditional Status Due March 28, 2025 UPS STORE: Class Cert Conference in McLaren Set for Dec. 17 USHEALTH ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Tossed WALMART INC: Discriminates Black Customers, Brewster Alleges WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 13 to File Class Reply WILMINGTON TRUST: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 23 WISCONSIN: Robillard "GPS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action WOOL & PRINCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges WUTECH CALIFORNIA: Acuna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. XCEL ENERGY: Parker Seeks Class Cert Bid Deadlines Extension XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks to Certify Class ZARBEE'S INC: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Feb. 25, 2025 ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class Suit ********* 21 MAIN NORTH: Seeks to Stay Briefing in Class Cert Bid Response ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM FORTNER, and AUTUMN MCMANUS, individually and on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. 21 MAIN NORTH BEACH, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and LOVIN' OVEN CATERING OF SUFFOLK, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 4:24-cv-05893-JD (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying briefing in response to Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective Action until 14 days after the Court rules on the Defendants' pending partial motion to dismiss and motion for more definite statement. Staying the briefing related to Plaintiffs' Collective Motion is warranted here. All three factors weigh in favor of granting the proposed stay. -- First, staying a response to Plaintiffs' Collective Motion would be judicially economical because Defendants' pending Motion will potentially change all Counts of the Complaint, and could lead to dismissal of at least two of the collectives Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify. -- Second, Defendants would be prejudiced if the briefings were not stayed because Defendants would be required to respond to Plaintiffs’ Collective Motion without fully understanding the Complaint, knowing which Counts remain in the lawsuit and without the benefit of discovery. -- Finally, neither Plaintiffs, nor the putative class, will suffer prejudice by the granting of this Motion. The Defendants' motion, if granted would be dispositive on Counts I and II of the complaint and impact Plaintiffs' collective motion's proposed certification under Counts I and II. Further, the Defendants' motion, if granted, would impact the allegations encompassing all the classes the Plaintiffs seek to certify in their Collective Motion. Because the Defendants' motion challenges every Count in Plaintiffs' complaint and seeks dismissal of two Counts, resolution of Defendants’ Motion is necessary before addressing Plaintiffs' Collective Motion. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an eleven count Collective/Class Action Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial alleging the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, and seeking to represent servers and bartenders previously or currently employed by the Defendants in various 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) opt-in collectives and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 opt-out classes. 21 Main is a stand-alone prime steakhouse, sushi bar and upscale dining establishment. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dlm1hJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: John F. Connell, Jr., Esq. Matthew T. Scully, Esq. H. Carlton Hilson, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 104 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 271-4940 Facsimile: (864) 271-4015 E-mail: jconnell@burr.com mscully@burr.com chilson@burr.com A-PLUS CARE: Reid Wins Bid to Certify FLSA Collective ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louise Reid, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. A-Plus Care HHC Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01163-JPC-SDA (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Stewart Aaron entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to "certify" an FLSA collective. In addition, it is recommended that Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification be denied. If the District Court issues a decision adopting the undersigned's recommendation regarding class certification, the Plaintiff shall file a revised proposed notice limited to the FLSA collective no later than seven days after the District Court's decision. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has made a "modest factual showing" that she and other and potential opt-in plaintiffs "together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law." The Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action on February 10, 2023. The Plaintiff Louise Reid brings this action against the Defendants for alleged violations of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). Reid contends that she never was paid more than 13 hours of her 24-hour live in shifts because Defendants always subtracted three hours of meal breaks and eight hours for sleep per 24-hour shift, even when she did not receive three one-hour meal breaks and eight hours of sleep, including at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep. ( Plaintiff asks the Court to “certify” a collective action under the FLSA “consisting of home health aides who were employed by Defendants at any time during the period February 10, 2017 through [the date of certification] and who worked at least one 24-hour shift during the period for which they were not paid [ ] minimum wages for all hours worked and/or one and one half times their regular wage rate for their hours worked over 40 in a week . . . assuming they were entitled to 24 hours of pay for their 24-hour live in shifts.” The Plaintiff Reid was a home health aide employed by the Defendants from Oct. 7, 2020 until Oct. 7, 2021 and then on Jan. 7, 2023. A-Plus Care is a licensed home care agency providing home care services to the New York Metropolitan area. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QdKgTy at no extra charge.[CC] ACNE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Acne Corp., Case No. e 1:24-cv-09008 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024) alleges that Acne failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.acnestudios.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. According to the complaint, Acnestudios.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Acne. Yet, Acnestudios.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Acne excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of jeans on Acnestudios.com. Despite his efforts, however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a purchase on Acnestudios.com. Because Defendant's website, Acnestudios.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Acne's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Acnestudios.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale. The online store allows the user to view luxury apparel, footwear, and accessories, make purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Brooklyn, NY 11234 2377 56th Dr, E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com ALIGNMENT HEALTHCARE: Dabney Labor Suit Settlement for Court Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alignment Healthcare, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that on August 15, 2023, the company entered into a tentative settlement of a purported class action lawsuit captioned "Dabney v. Alignment Healthcare USA, LLC," in consideration of an aggregate payment of $913. The settlement of this matter is subject to approval by Orange County Superior Court which is expected in the fourth quarter of 2024. On April 27, 2022, a former employee of the company alleged that the company failed to provide hourly employees with required meal and rest breaks or pay such workers a premium equal to an hour of pay for missed meal or rest breaks. Discovery in the matter commenced on June 8, 2022. On September 2, 2022, the court granted a stay of proceedings and discovery in anticipation of mediation scheduled this August. Alignment Healthcare, Inc. is a health care platform that is purpose-built to provide seniors with high quality, affordable care with a vastly improved consumer experience. ALL AMERICAN: Murphy Sues Over Unlawful Notary Fees --------------------------------------------------- Gerald Murphy and Robyn Murphy, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. ALL AMERICAN TITLE AGENCY, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02025-JPW (M.D. Pa., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought about Defendant's practice of charging and collecting notary fees that exceed the fees a notary public may charge under applicable State law. American Title established a company policy of overcharging, collecting, and receiving fees for notary public services in excess of the fees fixed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The inflated $125 notary fee in the Closing Disclosure Plaintiffs received was a misrepresentation by Defendant. Residential mortgage lenders require the borrower or purchaser to use the services of a notary public in connection with the settlement of the mortgage loan. A reasonable consumer inherently expects fees for settlement services listed in a Closing Disclosure to be bona fide and proper in amount. The Plaintiffs' mortgage lender required them to use, and Plaintiffs had no choice but to use, the services of a notary public in connection with the settlement of their residential mortgage loan. Defendant by its conduct lead Plaintiffs to assume the $125 notary fee was bona fide and proper. Plaintiffs and members of the class relied on Defendant to, and assumed Defendant would, follow Pennsylvania law in providing notarial services, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs acquired the Defendants services. All American Title Agency, Inc. is an Ohio corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-281-7229 Fax: 412-281-4229 Email: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. JONATHAN F. ANDRES P.C. 1127 Hoot Owl Rd. St. Louis, MO 63005 Phone: 636-633-1208 Email: andres@andreslawpc.com ALLEVIATE TAX: Scofield Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alleviate Tax LLC. The case is styled as Shane Scofield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alleviate Tax LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03231-DDD-KAS (D. Colo., Nov. 21, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Alleviate Tax -- https://alleviatetax.com/ -- is a privately-owned tax resolution company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Loses Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order denying the motion for class certification and motions to seal. The Court further entered an order that no later than Dec. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff shall file a motion for class certification and motion to seal. Based on the present record, none of the statements in the motion for class certification merit sealing. Large portions of the attachments likewise fail to merit sealing. For example, one attachment is a 97-page deposition of Allstate's Rule 30(b)(6) witness. It is not plausible that it should be sealed in its entirety. Another attachment includes medical records of a minor. (Doc. 55-6.) Those medical records are subject to sealing, but that attachment also includes documents, such as a police report, that are not subject to sealing. The parties must confer and significantly reduce the amount of information they seek to file under seal. Plaintiff must then file a renewed motion for class certification and a renewed motion to seal. That renewed motion should seek to seal only the select portions of documents or attachments that may properly be filed under seal. Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uTdc4n at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Hossfeld Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance Company, et al. The case is styled as Robert Hossfeld, Wes Newman, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, BRAINSTORM XX, LLC, d/b/a www.ROBOCALLS.CASH, Case No. 4:24-mc-00142 (E.D. Tex., Nov. 21, 2024). The Allstate Corporation -- https://www.allstate.com/ -- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Glenview, Illinois since 2022.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: James Emery Rogers, Esq. AKERMAN LLP - HOUSTON 1300 Post Oak Blvd, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77056 Phone: (713) 968-3861 Fax: (713) 960-1527 Email: james.rogers@akerman.com ALTICOR INC: Garcia Seeks Final Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA GARCIA, ANDREA P. BRANDT and HOWARD HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALTICOR, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ALTICOR, INC., THE FIDUCIARY COMMITTEE OF ALTICOR, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-30,Case No. 1:20-cv-01078-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in this action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, fully executed on July 1, 2024, and previously filed with the Court on July 1, 2024; 2. Certifying the Class as defined in the July 10, 2024, Preliminary Approval Order; 3. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs' Counsel as Class Counsel under FED. R. CIV. 23(g); 4. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an objection and obtain additional information; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Alticor owns and manages manufacturing and distribution facilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bh9KRs at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com ALTRIA GROUP: Class Cert Bids Deadline Modified to June 20, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS J REECE, et al., v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-02345-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Orrick entered an order modifying case schedule as follows: Expert disclosure: Jan. 20, 2025 Expert rebuttal: March 20, 2025 Close expert discovery: May 20, 2025 Deadline for class cert motions: June 20, 2025 Oppositions and Daubert motions: July 28, 2025 Replies and Daubert oppositions: Sept. 8, 2025 Daubert replies: Sept. 22, 2025 Hearing on class cert and Dauberts: Oct. 9, 2025 Altria Group manufactures and sells smokeable and oral tobacco products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lBxly8 at no extra charge.[CC] ALUMNI CLUB: Kulinski Sues Over Unlawfully Misappropriated Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- Kerry Kulinski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ALUMNI CLUB TAVERN & EATERY and MITCH TEIPNER, Case No. 2:24-cv-01512-BHL (E.D. Wis., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collection Laws ("WWPCL") to recover unlawfully misappropriated tips. The Defendants established and imposed a tip pool upon Defendants' service workers, yet Defendants improperly failed to distribute all of the incoming tips to Defendants' food service workers. The Defendants required their food service workers to pay a portion of their incoming tips to Defendants in order to make up for cash register "shortages" and/or other lost or stolen sums of money or property. The managers with whom Defendants required their food service workers to share tips had managerial duties. The Plaintiff and all other hourly-paid, tipped, non-exempt employees were subject to Defendant's same pay policies and practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants into the position of Server/Bartender on August 3, 2024. The Alumni Club Tavern & Eatery is an entity doing business in the State of Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Stanford, Esq. Annie T. Stanford, Esq. STANFORD LAW OFFICES, S.C. 225 East Fairmount Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53217 Phone: (414) 276-8269 Fax: (414) 276-2868 Email: PAS@StanfordLawOffices.com ATS@StanfordLawOffices.com AMERICAN RED: Faces HDPAC Class Suit Over Earthquake Donations -------------------------------------------------------------- THE HAITIAN DIASPORA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (HDPAC), et al. v. THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-24617-CMA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 25, 2024) is a class action complaint filed on behalf of two distinctive classes: (1) the Class of Beneficiaries, comprising at least 2 million individuals residing in Haiti and the United States who were personally victimized by the earthquake(s) in Haiti, including those who lost property or loved ones and were intended recipients of over five hundred million dollars raised by the defendants; and (2) the Class of Donors, consisting of thousands of individuals in the United States and worldwide who donated over 500 million dollars to the Defendants from 2010 to 2024 specifically to aid earthquake victims in Haiti. According to the complaint, days after the 2010 earthquake the named Defendants moved swiftly to create a platform to raise money. In the ensuing days and weeks, the Defendants used pictures of the devastating damage in Port-Au-Prince to raise money from donors all over the world. Within a few weeks the Defendants raised millions of dollars, and in total from the period 2010 through 2024, they raised in excess 500 million dollars. This money was supposed to be spent in Haiti, rebuilding roads, hospitals, schools, and helping victims of the earthquakes. Instead, the defendants misused the funds to pay exorbitant, unjustified salaries to their CEOs and executives, enabling them to live extravagant lifestyles while the intended beneficiaries of the donations suffered from hunger, poverty, and disease. The Plaintiffs consist of individuals who are members of the class of beneficiaries, having directly suffered from the devastation of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti and for whom the Defendants raised funds, as well as members of the class of donors, who contributed money to the Defendants under the belief that their donations would be used for the stated purpose of aiding the victims. The Plaintiffs include NATHANIEL BALLANTYNE, CRIDIKEL TRUTHBAY, RENEE HASLER, JOCELYN JEAN LOUIS, KICWITT CINEUS, MUSCADIN JEAN YVES JASON, ALIX PIERRE, FRANTZ SAINT FORT, ANGE CARMEL MARIE FONTILUS, and ERIC PLACIDE (On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated donors and beneficiaries). The Defendants include THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS, THE HAITIAN RED CROSS, GAIL J. MCGOVERN, (in her Official Capacity as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the American Red Cross, CLIFF HOLTZ, (in his capacity as president and Chief Executive Officer of American Red Cross), BONNIE MCELVEEN-HUNTER (Individually and her official capacity as chairwoman of the Board of directors of the American Red Cross), THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS, in their capacity as Board Members), THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMERICAN RED CROSS (In their official capacity as members of the board of directors), THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HAITIAN RED CROSS (In their individual and official capacity as members of the Board of Directors), JOHN DOE 1-100 (being subsidiaries, and/or subcontractors of RED CROSS).[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Wil Morris, Esq. MORRIS LEGAL, PC 2800 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 530 Miami, FL 33137 Telephone: (305) 444-3437 Facsimile: (305) 444-3457 AMERIFLIGHT LLC: Bid to Certify Class & Collective Partly OK'd -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN FREDERICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERIFLIGHT, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01757-X (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Brantley Starr entered an order granting the motion for Ameriflight to file an amended answer with a counterclaim and granting in part the motion to certify a class and collective. -- The Court certifies for the penalty claim a class of Beechcraft 99 pilots who flew less than 12 months of revenue generating flying for Ameriflight (or $10,000 for those who left after 12 months but before 18). -- The Court also certifies a collective for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims for pilots with a repayment agreement who left employment with Ameriflight before the term of the repayment plan was complete. -- The Court concludes that the restraint claim flunks Rule 23(b)(3)’s requirement that common questions predominate. Pilot Kathleen Fredericks agreed to work for Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) and repay training costs if she left before a predetermined time. She left early, began making payments, and then brought two claims against Ameriflight under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and two claims under state law. Ameriflight is a charter airline operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HirA7n at no extra charge.[CC] ANCIENT ORGANICS: Seeks to Strike Effingers' Class Cert Reply ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY EFFINGER and KEEFE STEVERNU, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. ANCIENT ORGANICS, a California corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-03596-AMO (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on Feb. 13, 2025, for an order striking the Plaintiff Kelly Effinger's reply in support of class certification. Ancient Organics notes that the hearing on the Motion for Class Certification is set for Feb. 20, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. But the Court's scheduling notes show that date is now blocked off. As a matter of efficiency, Ancient Organics requests the Court continue the hearing on this related Motion until Feb. 20, 2025. The more opportunities they get, the more Counsel prove that they are inadequate attorneys to represent the putative class. Ancient Organics respectfully requests the Court strike the untimely Reply, and deny the Motion for Class Certification. Ancient specializes in producing organic ghee using traditional methods. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cbcn4Z at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. James H. Moon, Esq. Peter K. Bae, Esq. Katelyn A. Feliciano, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com jamesmoon@dwt.com peterbae@dwt.com katelynfeliciano@dwt.com ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Securities Suit Over Company Reorganization --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that on July 2, 2024, Patrick Ayers, a purported shareholder, filed a derivative and class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against certain current and former directors of the company and certain of its affiliates. The complaint asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duty related to the corporate reorganization that changed the company's "Up-C" structure to a customary "C" corporation. The complaint seeks unspecified damages from the defendants for the plaintiff individually and on behalf of the company and other former Class A common stockholders as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Atlas Energy Solutions Inc. is a holding company and the ultimate parent company of Atlas Sand Company, LLC which is a producer of locally sourced 100 mesh and 40/70 sand used as a proppant during the well completion process. BASSFORD REMELE: Dingman Appeals Remand Bid Denial to 8th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID DINGMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their motion to remand the lawsuit entitled David Dingman, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bassford Remele, PA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-03675-ECT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The Plaintiffs brought this class action complaint against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Sept. 20, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On Sept. 23, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On Nov. 12, 2024, Judge Eric C. Tostrud denied the Plaintiffs' motion to remand. The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party was denied without prejudice. The appellate case is captioned David Dingman, et al. v. Bassford Remele, PA, et al., Case No. 24-3365, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 21, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on or before December 31, 2024; -- Appellant's Brief is due on January 10, 2025; -- Appellant's Appendix is due on January 10, 2025; and -- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID G. DINGMAN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Douglas J. Nill, Esq. DOUGLAS J. NILL, PLLC 150 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1850 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 573-3669 - and - John Charles Weisensell, Esq. WEISENSELL & MASTRANTONIO 23 S. Main Street, Suite 301 Akron, OH 44308 Telephone: (330) 434-1000 Defendants-Appellees Bassford Remele, PA, et al. are represented by: William Lawrence Davidson, Esq. LIND & JENSEN 901 Marquette Avenue, S., Suite 1900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 746-0147 - and - Michael M. Lafeber, Esq. TAFT & STETTINIUS 2200 IDS Center 80 S. Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 977-8472 - and - Ryan Falconer Bracklin, Esq. Suzanne Louise Jones, Esq. David Schooler, Esq. GORDON & REES 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 3850 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 202-0411 (651) 253-9951 (612) 364-1742 - and - Ryan T. Brown, Esq. GORDON & REES One N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 980-6762 BEACHBODY CO: Continues to Defend Reilly Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- 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 Reilly class suit. On June 14, 2024, Bryan Reilly on behalf of himself and similarly situated current and former stockholders of Forest Road Acquisition Corp., which later became the Beachbody Company, Inc., filed a verified class action complaint (the "Reilly Action") against the former directors and officers of Forest Road, as well as Forest Road Acquisition Sponsor LLC, Forest Road Company LLC, Zach Tarica, and Jeremy Tarica alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the merger among Forest Road, The Beachbody Company, Inc., and Myx in 2021. The lawsuit also brought claims against the Company, Kevin Meyer, and The Raine Group LLC alleging aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and against the former Forest Road directors and officers, the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants, Raine, and Meyer for unjust enrichment. The Company also have certain indemnification obligations as to some or all of the former Forest Road directors and Raine as to certain claims. The Reilly Action generally alleges that the proxy that Forest Road issued prior to the Merger contained numerous material misstatements and omissions that impaired the Forest Road stockholders' ability to make an informed decision regarding whether to redeem their stock in connection with the Merger. The plaintiff also asserts that the Merger was a conflicted transaction because the Forest Road Sponsor Defendants and the former Forest Road directors were incentivized to close the Merger even if it was a value-decreasing transaction for Forest Road's public stockholders. As to the Company, Meyer, and Raine, the complaint alleges that these defendants aided and abetted the Forest Road defendants' disclosure violations. 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. BELSTAFF NORTH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says -------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Belstaff North America, Inc, Case No. 2:24-cv-08194 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.extrabutterny.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Extra Butter provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit contends. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Extra Butter's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the suit. Mr. Agnone is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Belstaff.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price specials and other programs offered by Belstaff North America. Belstaff North America specializes in clothing, footwear and motorcycle gear including pants, hoodies, jackets, jumpers, shirts, tops, belts, hats, bags, shoes, jeans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HORWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com BOSS PET: Schultz Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD SCHULTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOSS PET PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12049 (N.D. Ill., November 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.petedge.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: incorrectly formatted lists, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate alt text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Boss Pet Products, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Camarena, Esq. 1016 W. Jackson, No. 32 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (630) 534-2527 Email: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com BRAIN DEAD: Website Inaccessible to the Bind, Jones Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BRAIN DEAD AMUSEMENTS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09069 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s website, www.wearebraindead.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Kennedy Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Kennedy class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Kennedy v. Progress Software Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed October 3, 2023). BHF has been named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit. The action relates to a data security incident at an alleged third-party vendor, PBI Research Services ("PBI"), and allegedly involves the MOVEit file transfer system that PBI uses in its provision of services ("MOVEit Incident"). As it relates to BHF, Plaintiff seeks to certify a subclass of persons whose private information was allegedly maintained by BHF and accessed or acquired in relation to the MOVEit Incident. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that BHF negligently chose to utilize PBI to store and transfer Plaintiff's and purported class members' private information despite PBI’s use of the MOVEit software which Plaintiff contends contained security vulnerabilities. The complaint asserts claims against BHF for negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment, and Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. BHF intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the United States. BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Continues to Defend Martin Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Martin class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Lawrence Martin v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed April 6, 2021). Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff is 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 similarly situated owners of universal life insurance policies issued or administered by defendants and 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, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory damages, attorney's fees, interest, and equitable relief including a constructive trust. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2021, which was denied in February 2022. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company of NY, a subsidiary of Brighthouse Life Insurance Company, was initially named as a defendant when the lawsuit was filed, but was dismissed as a defendant, without prejudice, in April 2022. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse is a provider of annuities and life insurance in the United States. CALIFORNIA STATE: Must File Class Cert Opposition by Jan. 29, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fisk, et al., v. Board of Trustees of the California State University, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00173 (S.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Todd W. Robinson entered an order setting briefing schedule. -- The Defendants shall file their opposition on or before Jan. 29, 2025, and Plaintiffs may file their optional reply, if any, on or before Feb. 19, 2025. -- As noted in Section III.A.2 of Judge Robinson's Standing Order for Civil Cases, "[a]n opposing party's failure timely to file an opposition to any motion may be construed as consent to the granting of the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c). The nature of suit stares Title IX Educational Amendments 1992 -- Sex Discrimination. The CSU system is officially incorporated as The Trustees of the California State University, and is headquartered in Long Beach, California.[CC] CAMMILLA WAMSLEY: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by Dec. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KHOSHIMJON SOBIRJANOV, et al., v. CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, et al. Case No. 2:24-cv-04129-PD (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Paul S. Diamond entered an order granting Plaintiffs' consent motion. The Plaintiffs' shall file a reply to Defendant's response in opposition to the motion for class certification no later than Dec. 9, 2024. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gNXeas at no extra charge.[CC] CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Shelby Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHELBY TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN FIELDLY, and JARROD LANGHANS, Defendants, Case No. 9:24-cv-81472-RLR (S.D. Fla., November 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Celsius' business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Celsius common stock at artificially inflated prices between February 29, 2024, and September 4, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that when PepsiCo, Inc. (Pepsi) took over as Celsius' primary distributor, it loaded up on Celsius product inventory throughout the first year of their partnership, exponentially growing Celsius' 2023 revenues by another more than 100 percent in just one year to $1.318 billion during 2023. However, this was a one-time stock up that did not represent Pepsi's ongoing demand for Celsius product. As such, the 2023 stock up caused Celsius to mislead investors, over-represent then-present demand for its Celsius' products, and conceal a massive glut of inventory in Pepsi's warehouses for which Celsius already had recognized revenues once shipped to Pepsi. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated investors who had purchased Celsius common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period have sustained economic losses, says the suit. Shelby Township Police & Fire Retirement System is a public pension fund based in Shelby, Michigan. Celsius Holdings, Inc. is a beverage company headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 750-3000 Email: rrobbins@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Email: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com CENGAGE LEARNING: Court Likely to Certify Settlement Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS BERNSTEIN, ELAINE INGULLI, TERRY HALBERT, EDWARD ROY, LOUIS PENNER, and ROSS PARKE, as personal representative of THE ESTATE OF ALISON CLARKE-STEWART, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. CENGAGE LEARNING, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-07541-ALC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Carter, Jr. entered an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), that: 1. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. 2. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(i), the Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2), and therefore preliminarily approves the Settlement as set forth in the Agreement, including the releases contained therein, as being fair, reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class based on the relevant factors under Rule 23(e)(2) and City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corporation, 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), subject to the right of any Settlement Class Member to challenge the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Agreement and to show cause, if any exists, why a final judgment dismissing the Action against Defendant, and ordering the release of the Author Released Claims and Cengage Released Claims against the Released Parties, should not be entered after due and adequate notice to the Settlement Class as set forth in the Agreement and after a hearing on final approval. 3. The Court finds that the Agreement was entered into at arm's length by highly experienced counsel with the assistance of a mediator and is sufficiently within the range of reasonableness that notice of the Agreement should be given as provided in the Agreement. 4. The Court finds that the proposed plan of allocation, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Chanler A. Langham, is sufficiently fair and reasonable that notice of the distribution plan should be given as provided in the Notice. 5. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(B)(ii), the Court also finds that it will likely be able to certify the Settlement Class, consisting of: "All authors of royalty-bearing works who entered into a publishing agreement with Cengage Learning, Inc., or one of its predecessors-in-interest, and whose royalty-bearing works have (a) been sold as a component of a MindTap product and have been assigned a Digital Royalty Allocation other than 100%; or (b) been available on Cengage Unlimited" for purposes of judgment on the proposal under Rule 23(b)(3). Cengage Learning, Inc. provides learning solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=csjl9c at no extra charge.[CC] CENTRUS ENERGY: Faces Raps Over Off-Site Contamination ------------------------------------------------------- Centrus Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that it is facing a complaint seeking damages for alleged off-site contamination allegedly resulting from activities on the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. On May 26, 2019, the company and other contractors who have operated facilities at the Portsmouth site were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed by Ursula McGlone, Jason McGlone, Julia Dunham, and K.D. and C.D., minor children by and through their parent and natural guardian Julia Dunham in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of all current or former residents within a seven-mile radius of the Portsmouth and all students and their parents at the Zahn's Corner Middle School from 1993 to present. The complaint was amended on December 10, 2019, and on January 10, 2020 to add additional plaintiffs and new claims. On July 31, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. The court dismissed ten of the fifteen claims and allowed the remaining claims to proceed to the next stage of the litigation process. On August 18, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and notice of dismissal of three of the individual plaintiffs. On March 18, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to add new plaintiffs and allegations. On March 19, 2021, the court granted their motion for leave to amend the complaint to include Price-Anderson Act and eight other state law claims. On May 24, 2021, the company and the other defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 31, 2022, the court granted the company's motion in part by dismissing claims brought on behalf of the minor children but allowed the other claims to proceed. As such, the discovery stage of litigation is continuing. On April 28, 2022, the company and the other defendants filed their answer to a fourth amended complaint. Centrus Energy Corp. (www.centrusenergy.com) supplies nuclear fuel for use in nuclear power plants and works to develop and deploy advanced centrifuge technology to produce enriched uranium for commercial and government uses, including for national security. CHRIS REYKDAL: Settlement in ND Suit Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- 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. The Class satisfies the four prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy). 3. 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. The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging that Washington's law that ends special education services at the end of the school year during which a student turns 21 violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEPVod at no extra charge.[CC] CIGNA CORP: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Stewart Due March 28, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stewart, et al., v. CIGNA Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00769 (D. Conn., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order on motion for extension of time: -- All discovery shall be completed on or Feb. 20, 2024 before: -- The parties are free to set and amend any interim discovery deadlines without the court's approval provided such deadlines do not postdate the deadline for all discovery. -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class March 28, 2025 certification shall be submitted on or before: -- The Defendant's response thereto shall May 29, 2025 be filed on or before: -- Any reply in support of the motion shall June 27, 2025 be submitted on or before: The nature of suit states E.R.I.S.A. -- Employee Benefits. Cigna is an American multinational managed healthcare and insurance company based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[CC] CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Loomis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Loomis Sayles Trust Company LLC, v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-06706-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a 30-day extension of the deadline to file its reply in support of its motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel ("Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion") to Jan. 10, 2024. -- LSTC's reply is currently due on December 11, 2024. -- LSTC submits there are compelling reasons for granting this request. -- LSTC received Citigroup's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion including the Expert Declaration of Professor Bruce A. Green in the late hours of Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2024. -- Professor Green was retained on behalf of Citigroup to provide an expert opinion on professional ethics including whether LSTC’s counsel Foley Hoag LLP has a conflict of interest in serving as class counsel in this action. Citigroup has indicated that it takes no position with respect to LSTC’s request. This is LSTC’s first request for an extension with respect to Plaintiff’s Class Certification Motion. LSTC’s extension request will not alter any other deadlines in this action. We thank the Court for its attention to this request. Citigroup provides banking and financial services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P75i07 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Baltay, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 832-1262 E-mail: MBaltay@foleyhoag.com COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Denny Files Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colgate Palmolive Company, et al. The case is styled as Shana Denny, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Colgate Palmolive Company, Tom's of Maine, Inc., Case No. 6:24-cv-02129-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Colgate-Palmolive Company -- https://www.colgatepalmolive.com/en-us -- commonly known as Colgate-Palmolive, is an American multinational consumer products company headquartered on Park Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Charles Wright, Esq. Kelly Amanda Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: (425) 395-7786 Email: wright@carsonnoel.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com COMERICA BANK: Sparkman Seeks to Unseal Sealed Docs ---------------------------------------------------- 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 asks the Court to enter an order that either: (1) directs the clerk to unseal the sealed documents filed with her motion for class certification and her unredacted class certification brief, or (2) directs the clerk to maintain the documents under seal. The Defendants designated documents produced in discovery as "confidential." Plaintiff is filing copies of these documents in support of her motion for class certification and has quoted some of them in her brief. The documents Defendants seek to have sealed are attached as Exhibits 6, 7, 10-12, 14, 16-24, 26-29, and 40-42 to the Declaration of Blythe H. Chandler in support of this motion to seal. While the Plaintiff does not agree with all of the confidentiality designations, she is filing them under seal in compliance with Stipulated Protective Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). The Plaintiff is also filing under seal an unredacted version of her brief because it quotes from documents that Defendants designated confidential. Because the Defendants have designated confidential the materials Plaintiff is filing under seal, it is Defendants' burden to demonstrate compelling reasons to maintain them under seal. Comerica is an American financial services company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WLagwp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC Jasmin Rezaie-Tirabadi, Esq. 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com bchandler@terrellmarshall.com jrezaie@terrellmarshall.com - and - Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd., Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 E-mail: srios@bm.net - and - Daniel A. Schlanger, Esq. SCHLANGER LAW GROUP LLP 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 500-6114 E-mail: dschlanger@consumerprotection.net COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE: Rios Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Ignacio Rios, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY TREE SERVICE, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV003969 was removed from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Monterey, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 21, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-08243-VKD. The Complaint pleads the following seven purported causes of action against Defendant: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages Owed; Failure to Pay all Overtime Wages Owed; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Blake R. Bertagna, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 695 Town Center Drive, Seventeenth Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924 Phone: (714) 668-6200 Facsimile: (714) 979-1921 Email: blakebertagna@paulhastings.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources 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 a consolidated shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oklahoma County. In April 2023, three separate putative class action lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Continental Resources, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. CJ-2022-4162, in the District Court of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma (the "Consolidated Action"). In the Consolidated Action, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated former shareholders of the Company, allege that Mr. Hamm, certain trusts established for the benefit of Mr. Hamm and/or his family members, and the Company's other directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the take-private transaction and seek: (i) monetary damages; (ii) the costs and expenses associated with the lawsuits; and (iii) other equitable relief. The defendants continue to vigorously defend themselves against these claims. Continental Resources, Inc. is into the production of crude oil and natural gas based in Oklahoma. CORSA COAL: Fails to Pay All Time Worked, Killinger Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM KILLINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CORSA COAL CORPORATION and WILSON CREEK ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00279 (W.D. Pa., Nov. 25, 2024) challenges the Defendants' policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he and similarly situated coal miners were not paid for all time worked at the beginning and end of their shift, including for time spent donning and doffing required clothing and equipment that occurred when they were required to be on Defendants' premises and that was and is integral and indispensable to their principal activities of coal mining. The Plaintiff also alleges that he and similarly situated coal miners were paid production bonuses that were not incorporated into the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation. Corsa is the sole shareholder of Wilson Creek Holdings, Inc., which is the sole member of Wilson Creek. Wilson Creek Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Friedens, Pennsylvania. Wilson Creek is the sole member of Maryland Energy Resources, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Friedens, Pennsylvania. The Defendants own and operate coal mines in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, and in bordering Garrett County, Maryland, employing over 300 employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Krysten L. Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Direct: (267) 256-9973 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Telephone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com COUGAR CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agostini Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Cougar Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-09059 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges that Cougar failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.berettagalleryusa.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. Berettagalleryusa.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Cougar. Yet, Berettagalleryusa.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Cougar excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. 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.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Manhasset, NY 11030 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks to Decertify Class in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, CITY OF NEW BRITAIN, VISTRA ENERGY CORP., YALE UNIVERSITY, JENNIE STUART MEDICAL CENTER, INC., AND SEIU PENSION PLANS MASTER TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. CREDIT SUISSE AG, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BARCLAYS BANK PLC, UBS AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, CITIBANK N.A., CITIGROUP INC., and ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, Case No. 1:11-cv-05450 (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. Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PUbpUZ 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 CREDIT SUISSE: Seeks to File Memo Under Seal in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., v. Credit Suisse AG, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-05450-NRB (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=Dugr0O 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 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Must Oppose Renewed Class Cert Bid By Dec. 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NB, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-01511 (D.D.C., Filed Sept. 7, 2010), the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon entered an order on motion to modify set/reset deadlines: -- The Defendant shall file any opposition to the plaintiffs' Third Renewed Motion for Class Certification by Dec. 6, 2024. -- The Plaintiffs shall file any reply by Jan. 13, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] DOMINICK R. DALE: Faces Snyder Class Suit Over Legal Malpractice ---------------------------------------------------------------- JON SNYDER and SHORELINE APPRAISAL SERVICES INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DOMINICK R. DALE, ESQ., individually, and THE LAW OFFICE OF DOMINICK R. DALE, ESQ., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08940 (S.D.N.Y., November 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of New York Judiciary Law Section 487 and legal malpractice. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in a fraudulent scheme designed to strip small businesses and their individual owners out of their last remaining cash by using a network of companies and law firms to target financially vulnerable merchants leading them to believe they may receive debt-relief services, while providing little, if any, debt-relief services (in exchange for illegal fees and false claims of legal assistance). The Defendants have conspired with debt relief companies to indirectly solicit merchants through so-called litigation insurance programs, wherein the debt relief company solicits and signs up the client, and then shares their fee directly with the Defendants. As a direct result of this financial motivation, the Defendants file cookie-cutter pleadings, including verified answers and oppositions to motions for summary judgment, without ever speaking to the client. The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' misconduct. Shoreline Appraisal Services Inc. is a provider of appraisal services, with its principal place of business in Indiana. The Law Office of Dominick R. Dale, Esq. is a law firm based in Forest Hills, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shane R. Heskin, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 244-9500 Email: heskins@whiteandwilliams.com - and - Ariel Bouskila, Esq. Steven Berkovitch, Esq. BERKOVITCH & BOUSKILA, PLLC 1545 US 202 Suite 101 Pomona, NY 10970 Telephone: (212) 729-1477 Email: ari@Bblawpllc.com ENSURETY VENTURES: Radvansky Sues Over Unlawful Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Radvansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENSURETY VENTURES, LLC d/b/a OMEGA AUTO CARE, Case No. 3:24-cv-00221-TCB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought alleging that the Defendant made telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff and other putative class members despite not having the requisite consent to contact those individuals who, like the Plaintiff, were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Telemarketing calls are intrusive. A great many people object to these calls, which interfere with their lives, tie up their phone lines, and cause confusion and disruption on phone records. Faced with growing public criticism of abusive telephone marketing practices, Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Because telemarketing calls typically use technology capable of generating thousands of similar calls per day, the Plaintiff sues on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received similar calls. A class action is the best means of obtaining redress for the Defendant's illegal telemarketing and is consistent both with the private right of action afforded by the TCPA and the fairness and efficiency goals of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's telephone number is on the National Do Not Call Registry and has been since September of 2021. Omega offers auto warranty services and relies on telemarketing calls to promote those services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven H. Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Rd NE 15 Piedmont Center Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com ERIC EMMERICH: Benitez-Diaz Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERTO BENITEZ-DIAZ, CESAR M. SERRANO-NIETO, JAIRO SALAZAR-DOMINGUEZ, JOSE DERAS-LOPEZ, and SALVADOR ALAMILLA, v. WARDEN E. EMMERICH, Case No. 3:24-cv-00369-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Conley entered an order that: 1. The joint petition filed by Alberto Benitez-Diaz, Cesar M. Serrano-Nieto, Jairo Salazar-Dominguez, Jose Deras-Lopez, and Salvador Alamilla is denied. 2. The motion for class certification is also denied. 3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, petitioners fail to show that their sentences have been calculated unlawfully in such a way that violates the Constitution. Because they are not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, their joint petition must be denied. Representing themselves, petitioners Alberto Benitez-Diaz, Cesar M. Serrano-Nieto, Jairo Salazar-Dominguez, Jose Deras-Lopez, and Salvador Alamilla seek federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. section 2241 from the calculation of their sentences by the United States Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). Specifically, petitioners contend that they have been denied time credits under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. section 3632(d)(4)(A), based on their status as deportable prisoners in violation of their right to due process and equal protection of the laws. They have also filed a motion for class certification of other BOP prisoners who are deportable and who have been denied these time credits, which would shorten the length of their imprisonment. Petitioners are currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Oxford, Wisconsin ("FCI-Oxford"). A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnpQD1 at no extra charge.[CC] EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ EverCommerce 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 Vladimir Gusinsky class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 31, 2024, plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its Board and the other parties to its sponsor stockholders agreement, dated June 30, 2021, Providence Strategic Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse Holdings, L.P. (collectively, the "Sponsor Stockholders"), captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny Baldwin, et. al., Case No. 2024-0077 (Del Ch.). The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law by providing the Sponsor Stockholders with a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer on the basis that it unlawfully limits the Board's authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company. The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief for the class and/or the Company, attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs and expenses, and other equitable relief. On June 14, 2024, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss, and on July 15, 2024, Plaintiff opposed that motion. On July 16, 2024, the court entered a stipulation and order dismissing the director defendants from the action. On August 29, 2024, the remaining defendants, the Company and Sponsor Stockholders, filed their reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on September 26, 2024, which Defendants filed a response to on October 10, 2024. On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that the claims alleged are not ripe for adjudication. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable. Headquartered in Denver, CO, EverCommerce is a publicly traded corporation that provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for small- and medium-sized businesses. [BN] FARMERS UNION: McBrayer Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Union Hospital Association, et al. The case is styled as Robert McBrayer, on behalf of minor child T.N.T., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association, Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-2024-00118 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Oklahoma Cty., Nov. 21, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Negligence General." Farmers Union Hospital Association provides health care services to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity policy without charge or amounts less than established rates.[BN] FAST PACE: Appeals Final Approval of Hutchinson Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC PLLC is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement and for attorneys' fees and expenses in the lawsuit entitled Christy Hutchinson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Fast Pace Medical Clinic PLLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00511, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Oct. 9, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final approval of a class action settlement and for approval of service payments, attorneys fees, and costs, and incorporated memorandum of law. On Oct. 30, 2024, Judge William L. Campbell, Jr. entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement and for attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $616,666.6794. The Court approved: (a) the Service Payments in the amount of $7,000 to each of Named Plaintiffs Christy Hutchinson, Christina Courtney, and Karen Harris, as provided in the Settlement Agreement; (b) the proposed attorneys' fees and costs of Class Counsel, in the amount of $616,666.67; and (c) the proposed payment to the Settlement administrator for its expenses in administering the Settlement, in the amount of $24,000.00. The case was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Christy Hutchinson, et al. v. Fast Pace Medical Clinic PLLC, Case No. 24-6045, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on November 21, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees CHRISTY HUTCHINSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 111 Town Square Place, Suite 400 Jersey City, NJ 07310 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 - and - Justin Glenn Day, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Defendant-Appellant FAST PACE MEDICAL CLINIC PLLC is represented by: Ryan P. Durham, Esq. BOSTON, HOLT, SOCKWELL & DURHAM P.O. Box 357 Lawrenceburg, TN 38464 Telephone: (931) 762-7167 - and - J. Stanton Hill, Esq. 2155 Heritage Drive, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (727) 709-8845 - and - Gerald Leonard Maatman, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS 190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 499-6710 GARDA CL NORTHWEST: Class Settlement in Gann Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON GANN, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GARDA CL NORTHWEST d/b/a GARDAWORLD, Case No. 1:21-cv-02069-RM-STV (D. Colo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. Certify a stipulated class action under the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act (the "CMWWA") C.R.S. sections 8-6-101 et seq. (as implemented by the Colorado Minimum Wage Order (the "MWO") 7 CCR 1103-1 and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order (the "COMPS") 7 CCR 1103-1 (2020)) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 defined as: "ALL INTRASTATE HOURLY LOCAL DRIVERS AND MESSENGERS WHO WORKED FOR The DEFENDANT AT THE COLORADO SPRINGS OR GRAND JUNCTION TERMINAL FROM JUNE 28, 2015 TO DEC. 31, 2020." 2. Grant preliminary approval to the Parties' Settlement Agreement and Notice (Exhibit 1); and 3. Set a final fairness hearing at the Court's earliest convenience at least 60 days after the date on which the Court grants this Motion. The settlement provides that Defendants will make a single payment of $142,000.00, less any Reduction Amount as defined infra, into a Settlement Fund to be administered by a Class Administrator to compensate Plaintiff and the Members of the Class who do not opt-out for their damages, inclusive of attorney fees and costs and incentive awards to the representative Plaintiff. Garda was founded in 1983. The Company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TQ3ql8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com The Defendant is represented by: Leah Capritta, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 5000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 974.6466 E-mail: Leah.Capritta@hklaw.com GCP WW: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GCP WW HOLDCO, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09006 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.workworld.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, benefits, and services of the Website, has caused Plaintiff to suffer an injury in fact due to Plaintiff's inability to purchase outdoor apparel, which is a concrete and particularized injury, and is a direct result of Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" as Plaintiff's central visual acuity with correction is less than or equal to 20/200. GCP WW HOLDCO, LLC operates the website that provides retail store services like clothing, headgear, footwear, and work safety equipment image mark.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ GrafTech International Ltd. 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 stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On January 25, 2024, a stockholder of the Company filed a class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of purchasers of GrafTech common stock between February 8, 2019 and August 3, 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint names the Company, certain past and present executive officers, and three entities associated with Brookfield Corporation and its affiliates as defendants. The complaint alleges that certain public filings and statements made by the Company contained material misrepresentations or omissions relating to the circumstances before and after the prior temporary suspension of the Company's graphite electrode facility located in Monterrey, Mexico, in September 2022. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. On May 15, 2024, the Court appointed the University of Puerto Rico Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On October 7, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. At this stage of the proceedings, it is too early to determine if the matter would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition. Graffech is a global manufacturer of graphite electrode products headquartered in Brookl5m Heights, Ohio. GRAND DESIGN: Nowak Sues Over Recreational Vehicles' Frame Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN P. NOWAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAND DESIGN RV, LLC; WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00950 (N.D. Ind., November 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and breach of implied warranty. The case arises from the Defendants' design, manufacturing, marketing, promotion, and sale of Solitude and Momentum fifth wheel recreational vehicles with alleged frame defect. According to the complaint, the frame failure occurs when a vehicle's frame, designed to be flexible enough to absorb road shocks, bends beyond its intended limits, cracks the walls and other sections of the vehicle, and separates from the trailer's body. Untreated, the vehicle could end up deemed unroadworthy, totaled, and/or compromise the safety of passengers as well as others on the road. Despite the Defendants' knowledge of the defect, they never disclosed it to the Plaintiff and Class members. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic damages. Winnebago Industries, Inc. is a manufacturer of recreational vehicles, with its principal place of business in Minnesota. Grand Design RV, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Winnebago Industries, with its principal place of business in Middlebury, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred Schultz, Esq. GREENE & SCHULTZ 520 N. Walnut Street Bloomington, IN 47404 Telephone: (812) 336-4357 Facsimile: (812) 336-5615 Email: fred@greeneschultz.com - and - Stephen J. Herman, Esq. Lance C. McCardle, Esq. Jason W. Burge, Esq. Maggie M. Daly, Esq. FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, 46th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 586-5252 Facsimile: (504) 586-5250 Email: sherman@fishmanhaygood.com lmccardle@fishmanhaygood.com jburge@fishmanhaygood.com mdaly@fishmanhaygood.com HAYWARD HOLDINGS: Faces Consolidated Suit Over SEC Disclosures -------------------------------------------------------------- Hayward Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that on August 2, 2023, a securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain of its current directors and officers (Kevin Holleran and Eifion Jones) and MSD Partners and CCMP Capital Advisors, LP on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of its common stock between March 2, 2022 and July 27, 2022. Action is captioned "City of Southfield Fire and Police Retirement System vs. Hayward Holdings, Inc., et al.," Case No. 2:23-cv-04146-WJM-ESK. On December 19, 2023, the Court issued a ruling consolidating this with another securities class action under the City of Southfield docket and appointing a lead plaintiff. In a consolidated class action complaint filed March 4, 2024, the Securities Class Action alleged on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who acquired shares of our common stock between October 27, 2021 and July 28, 2022, among other things, that the Company and certain of its current directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making materially false or misleading statements regarding inventory, growth, and demand trends and the Company’s financial projections for 2022. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative classes and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. On October 2, 2024, the Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the consolidated class action complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and certain of its current directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, making materially false or misleading statements regarding growth and demand trends following its initial public offering in March 2021. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative classes and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Hayward Holdings, Inc. is a global designer and manufacturer of pool and outdoor living technology with seven manufacturing facilities worldwide, which are located in North Carolina, Tennessee, Rhode Island, Spain (three) and China, and other facilities in the United States, Canada, France and Australia. HF MANAGEMENT: Moore Sues Over Unlawful Compensations ----------------------------------------------------- Ashton Moore, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC d/b/a HEALTHFIRST, a limited liability company, Case No. 1:24-cv-08868 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Minimum Wage Act ("NYMWA"), the New York Payment of Wages Act ("NYPOW"), and N.Y.C.R.R. ("NYCRR"), The Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, ("Pennsylvania Wage Acts"), and for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The Defendant violated the FLSA, state wage-and-hour law, and common law by systematically failing to compensate its CSRs for compensable work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods, when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system. This timekeeping procedure resulted in CSRs not being paid for all overtime hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid overtime, and in non- overtime workweeks for regular hours. More specifically, Defendant failed to compensate CSRs for the substantial time they spent turning on and booting up their computer and computer systems prior to clocking into Defendant's timekeeping system and when returning from their meal periods; reviewing emails; documenting call assessments; closing all work applications and systems they used during their shift; disconnecting from Defendant's server; and shutting down their computer after their last fielded call for the shift concluded and after clocking out of Defendant's timekeeping system, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a CSR with the job title of Medicare Care Coordinator. The Defendant has "grown into New York's largest not-for-profit health insurer, offering high-quality, affordable plans to fit every life stage, including Medicaid plans, Medicare Advantage plans, long-term care plans, Qualified Health plans, and Essential Plans."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Bernstein ISAACS BERNSTEIN, P.C. 2108 Yardley Road Yardley, PA 19067 Phone: 917-693-7245 Email: jb@lijblaw.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Alana A. Karbal, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com akarbal@sommerspc.com HSBC BANK: Oral Argument Set for Jan. 3, 2025 in Ni Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-AS-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered an order scheduling an Oral Argument for Jan. 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. HSBC Bank offers personal banking, wealth management, loans, savings accounts, leasing, retirement plans, investment management, and insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=npwsLE at no extra charge.[CC] JEREMY BARR: Thurston Files Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jeremy Barr, et al. The case is styled as John Edward Thurston, Wendall Hall, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Jeremy Barr, President of Recovery Solutions; Jarad Anderson, Recovery Solutions employer Facility Administrator; Cynthia Noblett, Business Office Manager and Employee for Recovery Solutions at FCCC; Case No. 2:24-cv-01070-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 21, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights. Jeremy Barr, President -- https://recoverysolutions.us/our-team/ -- joined in 2011 and has led the growth of Recovery Solutions from 6 locations in 3 states to 70+ locations in 10 states).[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Various Courts ------------------------------------------------------- Jetblue Airways Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that it is facing a consolidated antitrust suit in various courts. In December 2022 and February 2023, four putative class actions lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, respectively, alleging that its northeast alliance arrangement with the American Airlines Group Inc. violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Among other things, plaintiffs seek monetary damages on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of airline tickets from JetBlue and American and, depending on the specific case, other airlines on flights to or from concerned airports from July 16, 2020 through the present. Plaintiffs in these actions also seek to enjoin this arrangement. JetBlue moved to dismiss the claims. In September 2024, the court issued its Decision and Order denying JetBlue's motion to dismiss the consolidated civil class action cases pending in said court. JetBlue Airways Corporation provides air transportation services across the United States, the Caribbean, Latin America, Canada, and Europe. JOHNSON, TN: Must File Supplement in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, et. al., v. JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis McDonough entered an order directing the Defendants to file a supplement (1) explaining why the Court should decline to follow Sixth Circuit precedent, and (2) advising the Court whether they wish to persist in their motion to disallow Plaintiffs' use of the Daigle Report when moving for class certification. The Defendants shall file their supplement on or before Dec. 1, 2024. In their briefing, the Defendants neglect to cite a single case discussing how the Rules of Evidence apply to class certification. Notably, the Sixth Circuit has held that "evidentiary proof need not amount to admissible evidence" at the class-certification stage. The Defendants also failed to address this in their reply briefing after Plaintiffs explicitly discussed Lyngaas. The Defendants filed their motion to disallow use of Eric Daigle's report ("the Daigle Report") on October 31, 2024. On Nov. 5, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot, as the issue of class certification will be decided following the Court's resolution of Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmx6aS at no extra charge.[CC] KEYBANK NA: Hernandez Sues Over Unlawful Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Roca Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KEYBANK N.A. d/b/a GRADFIN (D. Colo., Nov. 21, 2024), Case No. 1:24-cv-03236-MEH (D. Colo., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought against GradFin for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, seeking to represent members of the Class who were and are unable to access Defendant's credit products and refinancing services because of their alienage. The Defendant GradFin follows a policy of denying full access to credit products and refinancing services to applicants on the basis of their alienage, including those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") status. The Defendant's violations have inflicted harm on Plaintiff, and the Class he seeks to represent, including but not limited to, access to credit products and refinancing with unfavorable terms and conditions, and emotional distress. The Plaintiffs were victims of the Defendant's discrimination. GradFin offers financial products and services, including student loans, personal loans, mortgages, and credit cards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. Luis L. Lozada, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Phone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org llozada@maldef.org KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Modify Briefing Schedule -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins and Tommie Woodard, individually and on behalf of the Knight-Swift Transportation Retirement Plan, v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01835-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion to modify briefing schedule regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification The Defendant has made good faith efforts to comply with the briefing deadline established by the Court. However, counsel for the Defendant, Wesley E. Stockard, who would serve as Defendant's lead trial counsel should this matter proceed to trial, has experienced subsequent family emergencies that necessitate additional time for Defendant to prepare and file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Parties have agreed to an additional fourteen days for the Defendant to prepare and file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class Certification. This would extend Defendant's deadline from Nov. 27, 2024, to Dec. 11, 2024. Additionally, the Parties have agreed Plaintiffs' deadline to prepare and file a reply to Defendant's anticipated opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended from Dec. 18, 2024, to Jan. 10, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 23, 2024. The Parties filed a Stipulation and Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule Regarding Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Nov. 1, 2024. Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HrZZqH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael C. McKay, Esq. MCKAY LAW, LLC 5635 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 117 Scottsdale, AZ 85250 Telephone: (480) 681-7000 Facsimile: (480) 348-3999 E-mail: mmckay@mckaylaw.us - and - Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Mark Ogden, Esq. Melissa L. Shingles, Esq. Wesley E. Stockard, Esq. Rachel Kaercher, Esq. James S. Fielding, Esq. Bradley Crowell, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3600 Facsimile: (602) 926-8949 E-mail: MOgden@littler.com MShingles@littler.com wstockard@littler.com rkaecher@littler.com jfielding@littler.com bcrowell@littler.com KONICA MINOLTA: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Marquinhos Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDRE MARQUINHOS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A., INC., ABC CORPS. 1-10, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:24-cv-10717-MEF-JSA (D.N.J., Nov. 25, 2024) alleges that the Plaintiff and the putative collective and class action members were not paid the appropriate amount of overtime compensation as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and seeks to recover significant economic damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the statutes. The Plaintiff was employed by Konica Minolta as an IT Systems Engineer, as part of its All Covered Assurance program. Konica is a Japanese multinational technology company, with its U.S. headquarters located at 100 Williams Drive, in the Borough of Ramsey, in the County of Bergen, in the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com - and - Evan Silagi, Esq. BERKOWITZ, LICHTSTEIN, KURITSKY, GIASULLO & GROSS, LLC 75 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 325-7800 Facsimile: (973) 325-7930 E-mail: esilagi@blkgg.com LANCASTER GENERAL: Class Cert Oral Argument Rescheduled to Dec. 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ST. LUKE'S HEALTH NETWORK, INC. d/b/a ST. LUKE'S UNIVERITY HEALTH NETWORK, et al., v. LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02157-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order that: -- The oral argument on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, previously scheduled for Dec. 10, 2024, is rescheduled to Wednesday, Dec. 11, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. in the courtroom of the undersigned at The Gateway Building, 201 Penn Street, 5th Floor, Reading, Pennsylvania. Lancaster is a regional hospital located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It is part of the University of Pennsylvania Health System. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2S7Oae at no extra charge.[CC] LATICO TRAINING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LATICO TRAINING CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-09009 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.laticoleathers.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on April 18, 2024 to access Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant’s online goods, content, and services. Specifically, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase the Bianca Tote/crossbody bag. The Plaintiff wished to purchase this product because he was looking for a versatile and stylish bag to give as gift to his Mother. He sought a high-quality leather item that could serve as a practical yet fashionable accessory for everyday use. 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. Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Casino Queen Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder 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 Casino Queen class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On April 2, 2021, Casino Queen, Inc. and Casino Queen Marquette, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On June 11, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, which the court denied on May 19, 2022. Discovery closed on December 1, 2023. On February 16, 2024, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. Also on February 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion for class certification, which are pending. The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. It believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Giuliano Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder 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 Giuliano class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 4, 2020, Alfred T. Giuliano, as liquidation trustee for RIH Acquisition NJ, LLC d/b/a The Atlantic Club Casino Hotel filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the Defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On September 8, 2020, Rancho's Club Casino, Inc., d/b/a Magnolia House Casino filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants’ procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for automatic card shufflers sold or leased in the United States. The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States from the defendants, or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, which the complaint asks the court to treble, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit, including attorneys' fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On October 29, 2020, the trial court consolidated the Giuliano and Rancho's Club Casino matters. On October 30, 2020, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a first amended consolidated complaint. On November 9, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended consolidated complaint, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano's individual claims. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice. On May 31, 2022, defendants filed a motion to lift the stay of the lawsuit for the limited purpose of amending the court's May 19, 2022 order to confirm that plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano must proceed to arbitration on an individual basis rather than a class-wide basis. On June 10, 2022, plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, and the court therefore denied as moot defendants' motion to lift the stay in an order entered on March 28, 2023. The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. It believes that the claims in the consolidated lawsuit are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against them. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LIGHT & WONDER INC: Continues to Defend Tonkawa Tribe Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder 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 Tonkawa Tribe class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On September 3, 2020, the Tonkawa Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma d/b/a Tonkawa Enterprises filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against L&W, Bally Technologies, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc., f/k/a Bally Gaming, Inc. On October 5, 2020, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to add Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians and the Umpqua Indian Development Corp., d/b/a Seven Feathers Casino as a plaintiff. On October 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In the complaint, the plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims arising from the defendants' procurement of particular U.S. patents. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants used those patents to create an allegedly illegal monopoly in the market for card shufflers sold or leased to regulated casinos in the United States. The plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of all regulated United States casinos directly leasing or purchasing card shufflers from the defendants on or after April 1, 2009. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages, the award of plaintiff's costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, and the award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On November 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims. On November 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that defendants are collaterally estopped from re-litigating issues litigated in the 2018 litigation versus Shuffle Tech International Corp., Aces Up Gaming, and Poydras-Talrick Holdings. On August 27, 2021, the Nevada district court entered an order transferring the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 19, 2022, the Illinois district court granted defendants' motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims; stayed all proceedings in the lawsuit pending resolution of the arbitral process; and accordingly dismissed all pending motions without prejudice as moot. The Company is currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if any. It believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against them. Light & Wonder, Inc. is a cross-platform global games company with a focus on content and digital markets which includes supplying game content and gaming machines, casino-management systems and table game products and services to licensed gaming entities; providing social casino and other mobile games, including casual gaming, to retail customers; and providing a comprehensive suite of digital gaming content, distribution platforms, player account management systems, as well as various other iGaming content and services. LOANDEPOT INC: Continues to Defend Kearns Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------ loanDepot 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 Kearns class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In June 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, captioned Jeffrey Kearns v. loanDepot.com, LLC, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff thereafter amended his complaint twice, on August 26, 2022, and October 3, 2023, respectively. The Second Amended Complaint asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, alleging the Company sent prerecorded voice calls to cellular telephones without express written consent. The SAC seeks actual and statutory damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. On October 23, 2023, loanDepot filed its answer to the SAC. On January 26, 2024, plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. The motion has been fully briefed and was set for hearing on June 21, 2024, however, the Court took the hearing off the calendar and advised that it would make its ruling on the briefs. The Company believes it has substantial defenses to this lawsuit and it continues to vigorously defend against it. loanDepot, Inc. is an Irvine, California-based nonbank holding company which sells mortgage and non-mortgage lending products.[BN] LUCY COOPER'S: Faces Foley Suit Over Minimum Wage Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ MACI FOLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LUCY COOPER'S, LLC (a/k/a Lucy Cooper's Texas Ice House, Case No. 5:24-cv-01356 (W.D. Tex., Nov. 25, 2024) asserts individual and collective action Fair Labor Standards Act claims against the Defendant for minimum wage and tip payment violations, for individual FLSA unpaid overtime wage claims and minimum wage claims relative to off-the-clock work training the Defendant's employees, and for individual FLSA retaliation claims against Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant at its bar/restaurant in San Antonio, Texas as a tipped employee. At times relevant, Defendant purported to pay Plaintiff $2.13 per hour on a tip credit basis. Allegedly, the Defendant kept tips that were earned by Plaintiff and the putative collective action members to cover cash register shortages, amounts for meals and/or beverages that should have been paid by customers, full menu price amounts for employee meals, and amounts for work uniforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. VAUGHT FIRM, LLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (972) 707-7816 Facsimile: (972) 591-4564 E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com LYFT INC: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Feb. 6 ------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION IN RE LYFT, INC. DERIVATIVE LITIGATION This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS Lead Case No. 4:20-cv-09257-HSG SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION Exhibit D Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. TO: ALL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF LYFT, INC. ("LYFT" OR THE "COMPANY") CURRENTLY AND AS OF JULY 23, 2024: IF YOU ARE A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER AND WERE A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF LYFT COMMON STOCK AS OF JULY 23, 2024, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE ABOUT A SETTLEMENT CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-REFERENCED LITIGATION. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION." THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A MONETARY PAYMENT. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the parties to the above-captioned shareholder derivative action, (formerly captioned Chenoy v. Zimmer, Case No. 4:20-cv-09257 (N.D. Cal.)), as well as the parties to the shareholder derivative actions titled Mehta v. Green, Case No. 4:20-cv-09364 (N.D. Cal.); Hong Kok v. Green, Case No. 3:20-cv-09272 (N.D. Cal.); and Shuman v. Green, Case No. 4:21-cv-01263 (N.D. Cal.) (collectively, the "Federal Derivative Actions"), have reached an agreement to settle the derivative claims brought on behalf of and for the benefit of Lyft. The terms of the settlement are set forth in a Stipulation of Settlement dated July 23, 2024 (the "Stipulation"). This notice should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to, the text of the Stipulation, which has been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. A link to the text of the Stipulation and the full-length Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Shareholder Derivative Action may be found on the "Investors" page of Lyft's website at https://investor.lyft.com. Under the terms of the Stipulation, as a part of the proposed Settlement, Lyft has adopted and/or will adopt certain corporate governance reforms, which all parties agree confer substantial benefits upon Lyft. In light of the substantial benefits conferred upon Lyft by Plaintiffs' Counsel's efforts, the Company's insurers shall pay Plaintiffs' Counsel's attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of $700,000, subject to Court approval. A hearing will be held on Thursday, February 6, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. PST, before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612 (the "Settlement Hearing"), at which the Court will determine whether to approve the settlement. The Court may, in its discretion, change the date and/or time of the Settlement Hearing without further notice to you. The Court also has reserved the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by videoconference without further notice to you. If you intend to attend the Settlement Hearing, please consult the Court's calendar and/or Lyft's website, https://investor.lyft.com for any change in the date, time, or format of the Settlement Hearing. Any Lyft shareholder has a right, but is not required, to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, providing that he, she, or it is a shareholder of record or beneficial owner of Lyft common stock and was a shareholder of record or beneficial owner of Lyft common stock as of July 23, 2024. Any Lyft shareholder who satisfies this requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such shareholder's own choosing and at such shareholder's own expense, or may appear on their own. However, you shall not be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than Monday, January 13, 2025, you have filed with the Court a written notice of objection containing the following information: 1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number; 2. The case name and number (In re Lyft Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. 4:20-cv-09257); 3. Proof of being a Lyft shareholder currently and as of July 23, 2024; 4. The date(s) you acquired your Lyft shares; 5. A statement of each of each objection being made; 6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing (you are not required to appear); and 7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit to the Court, along with the names of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony. If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the written objection described above with the Court on or before Monday, January 13, 2025. All written objections and supporting papers must be filed with the Clerk of the Court, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 and served by that date upon each of the following Settling Parties' counsel: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Timothy Brown THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C. 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501 New York, NY 10017 and Gregory M. Nespole LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Counsel for Nominal Defendant Lyft, Inc. and Defendants Logan Green, John Zimmer, Brian Roberts, Prashant (Sean) Aggarwal, Jonathan Christodoro, Ben Horowitz, Valerie Jarrett, David Lawee, Hiroshi Mikitani, Ann Miura-Ko, and Mary Agnes (Maggie) Wilderotter: Andrew B. Clubok LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004 and Colleen C. Smith LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 12670 High Bluff Drive San Diego, CA 92130 YOUR WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR ON FILE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT NO LATER THAN MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2025. Only shareholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise. If you fail to object in the manner and within the time prescribed above you shall be deemed to have waived your right to object (including the right to appeal) and shall forever be barred, in this proceeding or in any other proceeding, from raising such objection(s). Inquiries may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel: The Brown Law Firm, P.C., 767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501, New York, NY 10017, telephone: (516) 922-5427; Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10004, telephone: (213) 363-7500. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR LYFT REGARDING THIS NOTICE Dated: November 4, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MACY'S INC: Paya Sues Over False or Misleading Discount ------------------------------------------------------- Golnaz Paya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MACY'S INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10065 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Macy's accountable for its unfair, deceptive, and unlawful policy of displaying false or misleading discount or "sale" prices in violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). With the sheer volume of online products being offered, consumers rely on accurate pricing to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, many retailers engage in deceptive and misleading practices by advertising products as "sales" or "markdowns" by showing significantly inflated "reference prices" or "regular prices" that are rarely, if ever, actually charged. These fake reference prices fool consumers into thinking they are getting a great deal at the "sale" price, when in fact, they have merely been tricked by the retailer, and in reality the consumer is paying the same amount, or even more than, the usual price of the item. Macy's has engaged in just such a deceptive pricing scheme. Macy's advertises perpetual or near perpetual discounts on many of its products, supposedly offering discounts of up to 70% off Macy's self-created, fictitious reference prices. Macy's 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. Macy's reference prices are false because Macy's rarely, if ever, offers the products for the reference price. Instead, the inflated reference prices allow Macy's 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 Macy's regularly sells the product, but the consumer has been tricked into thinking she found a great discount. Macy'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 the CLRA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased falsely discounted products on Macy's website. Macy's operates a website, www.Macy's.com, by which Macy's advertises and sells its goods in California.[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 MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Bardaji Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Bardaji securities class suit in the federal district court of Delaware. On March 6, 2023, a Match Group shareholder filed a complaint in federal district court in Delaware against Match Group, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its President and Chief Financial Officer seeking to recover unspecified monetary damages on behalf of a class of acquirers of Match Group securities between November 3, 2021 and January 31, 2023. See Leopold Riola Bardaji v. Match Group, Inc. et al, No. 1:23-cv-00245-UNA (District of Delaware). The complaint alleges that Match Group, Inc. misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that its Tinder business was not effectively executing on its new product initiatives; as a result, Tinder was not on track to deliver its planned product initiatives in 2022; and therefore, Match Group, Inc.'s statements about its Tinder’s business, product initiatives, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. On July 24, 2023, lead plaintiff Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint added allegations regarding misrepresentations relating to Match Group's acquisition of Hyperconnect and the business' subsequent integration and performance. On September 20, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On July 12, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit and will defend vigorously against them. Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Candelore Class Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Candelore class suit in the state court of California. On May 28, 2015, a putative state-wide class action was filed against Tinder in state court in California. See Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. BC583162 (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint principally alleges that Tinder violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act by offering and charging users over a certain age a higher price than younger users for subscriptions to its premium Tinder Plus service. On July 15, 2024, the court granted Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class based upon California Tinder Plus and Tinder Gold subscribers age 29 and over. The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations in the Candelore lawsuit and will continue to defend vigorously against it. Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] MATCH GROUP INC: Continues to Defend Oksayan Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Match Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Oksayan class suit in the Northern District of California. On February 14, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Match Group, Inc. in the Northern District of California by six plaintiffs from California, New York, Georgia, and Florida. Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that the Tinder, Hinge, and The League apps are designed to be "addictive" in violation of various consumer protection, product liability, negligence, and other laws. Plaintiffs claim that these services’ business models and features addict unsuspecting users, leading to increased depression, loneliness, among other things. Plaintiffs further allege that Tinder, Hinge, and The League failed to warn them of the risks of addiction and that the apps are engaging in fraudulent business practices by marketing their apps in a misleading way. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, as well as injunctive relief (implementing warnings, discontinuing certain marketing campaigns, providing resources). On June 10, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on July 22, 2024, the Company filed a motion to compel plaintiffs' claims to arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 12, 2024, and it filed a motion to dismiss on September 18, 2024. It believes that it has strong defenses to the allegations in this lawsuit and will defend vigorously against them. Match Group, LLC is an American internet and technology company headquartered in Dallas, Texas. [BN] MDL 2992: Defendants Can File Class Cert Memo Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation, Case No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order granting Defendant's motion to seal the following: -- Portions of Defendant's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; -- Portions of the index of exhibits; -- Portions of the declaration of Laura G. Brys in support of Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and -- Portions of the expert and fact report/declarations submitted as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; and -- Exhibits 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 51, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, and 122 in their entirety. Bank of America operates as a financial holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LtgrYx at no extra charge.[CC] MIANSAI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MIANSAI, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08185 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate the Defendant's website, www.miansai.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleges that the Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MISSION CEVICHE: Bid for Conditional Collective Certification OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELA FLORES, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. MISSION CEVICHE, LLC; MISSION CEVICHE UES INC.; MISSION CEVICHE CANAL LLC; MISSION CEVICHE NOMAD LLC; JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ; BRICE MATROLUCA; MIGUEL YARROW, Case No. 1:24-cv-03626-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered an order granting the motion for conditional collective certification. -- The proposed consent form and proposed notice are both approved, and they may be distributed to Covered Employees by mail, email, or text message. Consent forms for opt-in plaintiffs may be sent directly to plaintiff's counsel. -- All that is required for conditional certification is a "modest factual showing" that plaintiffs “and potential opt-in plaintiffs 'together were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law.' This is a "low standard of proof" that Flores has clearly met. -- As for Flores's request to have defendants produce "in Excel format the names, social security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses and all known telephone numbers of all Covered Employees," this request is granted in part. -- The Court declines to approve production of the Social Security numbers for the potential collective action members before [Flores] has demonstrated, with specificity, the necessity of such sensitive information." Mission Ceviche is a ceviche restaurant in the Upper East Side, New York City, specializing in authentic Peruvian cuisine. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QkEVwl at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL POTATO: Pattermann Sues Over Unlawful Conspiracy & Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Katie Pattermann, Mykayla Page, Fernando Marcelo Lopez, Joann Champagne, Mallory Flannery, Laura Ann Owens, and Todd Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD d/b/a/ POTATOES USA; CIRCANA, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED LLC; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; J.D. Irving, Limited (JDI) d/b/a CAVENDISH FARMS, and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12031 (), is brought antitrust case on behalf of end user purchasers of frozen potato products against NPPB, a major trade association, and the four largest processors of potatoes--Lamb Weston, McCain Foods, JRS and Cavendish (the "potato cartel")--for entering into an unlawful conspiracy to raise, stabilize, fix and/or otherwise manipulate the prices in the market for the frozen potatoes in the United States (the "Relevant Market"). The Defendants have entered a conspiracy to artificially raise prices in the Relevant Market by using conduits to price-fixing, such as potato price data aggregation services (namely, Circana, LLC's "PotatoTrac") and collective action through trade associations like NPPB. Armed with the same access to each other's data on pricing and other sensitive information, as well as with a direct line of communication to each other, the potato cartel moves prices skyward in lockstep--harming all purchasers of potatoes in the process. During the conspiracy period, a former senior director for McCain Foods stated that McCain was essentially unwilling to compete with Lamb Weston on significant portions of the FPP market (the price of battered French fries), stating "the higher ups" advised against it. Indeed, JRS's director of sales stated that, when customers threatened to switch to another member of the potato cartel that "we knew but we weren't worried about it." As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs bring this Action, on behalf of themselves and all other end user indirect purchasers who bought FPPs from January 1, 2021 through the present. Plaintiffs and Class members seek actual and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief--specifically, injunctive relief ending the potato cartel's conduct, disgorgement of profits into a constructive trust under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and any other relief this Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are indirect purchasers of FPPs during the Class Period and paid supracompetitive prices. National Potato Promotion Board d/b/a Potatoes USA is a business entity with its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Michael von Klemperer, Esq. Georgia Zacest, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-741-1019 Email: Beth@feganscott.com Mike@feganscott.com Georgia@feganscott.com - and - J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Phone: (515) 223-4567 Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls Bid for Leave to File Class Cert Reply OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge Kyle Dudek entered an order that: 1. McFalls' motion for leave to file a reply in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted. 2. By Dec. 4, 2024, McFalls must file a reply brief that addresses the Court's concerns about the proposed class and whether it includes members who have not suffered cognizable damages under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); 3. McFalls must also address the question of numerosity if the Court were to limit the class to nurses who have incurred a debt to NCH by leaving the program early and either paid the debt (or a portion of it) or remain liable to NCH for the fee. 4. Within seven days of receiving McFalls' reply brief, NCH must file a supplemental brief addressing her arguments and the Court's concerns above. The class appears overbroad—it includes members who may not have a claim under FDUTPA because they have not paid anything, nor have an outstanding debt to NCH. The Court cannot tell whether the proposed class will satisfy Rule 23 if it excludes nurses who completed their two-year commitment (and thus owe nothing) or had their fee waived. McFalls is a registered nurse. In May 2021, she accepted a position in NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program. McFalls left NCH after eleven months. So NCH deducted $477.90 from her final paycheck and refused to pay out "35 hours of accrued paid time off in the amount of $897.91." NCH then forwarded the outstanding balance of the Fellowship Program fee to a debt collector. McFalls wants to certify a class action for her claims under Florida's Declaratory Judgment Act—Florida Statute section 86.011—and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act—Florida Statute section 501.204. The proposed class would consist of: "all nurses who are or were subject to NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program Employment Agreement and the training repayment provisions therein at any point from July 31, 2019, through trial." NCH Healthcare is a not-for-profit, healthcare system. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6L0SJt at no extra charge.[CC] NE LLC: Doner Seeks to Certify FLSA Restaurant Server Collective ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELANIE DONER, and MAGGY MATA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. J GILBERTS NE, LLC, a Texas limited liability Company, and LANDRYS PAYROLL, INC., a Texas Corporation, Case No. 8:24-cv-00325-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: -- conditionally certifying the following collectives of similarly situated Restaurant servers and bartenders pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): Server Collective: "All servers who worked for Defendants at their Omaha, Nebraska, location during the previous three (3) years who were paid a direct cash wage of less than federal minimum wage." Bartender Collective: "All bartenders who worked for Defendants at their Omaha, Nebraska, location during the previous three (3) years who were paid a direct cash wage of less than federal minimum wage"; -- appointing Plaintiffs' counsel1 as counsel for the Collectives; and -- providing relief set forth within the attached Proposed Order. The Plaintiffs submit that this Court should conditionally certify the Server Collective and the Bartender Collective, and approve notice to be delivered to all servers and bartenders employed at the Restaurant owned by Defendants during the previous 3 years. The Plaintiffs surpass the lenient burden for conditional certification with evidence demonstrating that all servers and bartenders who are/were employed at the Restaurant are similarly situated because they: (i) performed substantially similar duties within the past three (3) years; ( (ii) worked at the same Restaurant in Omaha, Nebraska; (iii) worked under the same management at the Restaurant; and (iv) were all subject to the same unlawful wage and hour policies. The Plaintiffs Doner and Mata worked for Defendants at the same Restaurant in Omaha, Nebraska, during overlapping timeframes: Doner worked for the Defendants as a server from sometime in 2021 through April 2024, and Mata worked for the Defendants as a bartender from July 2022 to sometime in March 2024. J. Gilberts is an upscale casual steakhouse. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lHqHkD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan Richards, Esq. Patrick Solberg, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS - JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com NEW YORK, NY: Fact Discovery in Greene Suit Due April 11, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GREENE; GIOVANNA SANCHEZ-ESQUIVEL; SARAH ARVIO; LISA COLLINS; ORITSEWEYIMI OMOANUKHE AYU; and NEIL AMITABH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and COMMUNITY ACCESS, INC.; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF NEW YORK CITY, INC.; CORRECT CRISIS INTERVENTION TODAY – NYC; and VOICES OF COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND LEADERS NEW YORK, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; ERIC ADAMS; BILL DE BLASIO; EDWARD A. CABAN; KEECHANT L. SEWELL, DERMOT F. SHEA, NYPD POLICE OFFICER MARTIN HABER, NYPD POLICE SERGEANT CARRKU GBAIN, NYPD POLICE OFFICER VIKRAM PRASAD, NYPD POLICE OFFICER ANDRE DAWKIN, NYPD POLICE OFFICER TYRONE FISHER, OFFICER DEVIENDRA RAMAYYA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JULIAN TORRES; NYPD OFFICER APRIL SANCHEZ; NYPD POLICE OFFICER GABRIELE MORRONE; NYPD OFFICER JOHN FERRARA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER MARYCATHERINE NASHLENAS; and NYPD OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOES No. 1-40,Case No. 1:21-cv-05762-LAP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an amended scheduling order as follows: 1. All fact discovery allowed by the Court at this stage shall be completed no later than April 11, 2025 2. The parties will conduct discovery on the merits of the Plaintiffs' purported class claims if and only if the Court grants plaintiffs anticipated motion for class certification. New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River meets the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7h58RB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Moore, Esq. Luna Droubi, Esq. Jody L. Yetzer, Esq. BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP 99 Park Avenue, PH/26the Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 490-0400 E-mail: JMoore@BLHNY.com LDroubi@BLHNY.com - and - Marinda van Dalen, Esq. Ruth Lowenkron, Esq. NEW YORK LAWYERS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST, INC. 151 West 30th St. 11th Floor New York, NY 10001-4017 Telephone: (212) 244-4664 E-mail: mvandalen@nylpi.org rlowenkrnn@nylpi.org - and - P. Jenny Marashi, Esq. MARASHI LEGAL 930 Grand Concourse #1E Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (917) 703-1742 E-mail: marashi.legal@gmail.com - and - Justin Ormand, Esq. ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN STERLING US LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022-6069 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 The Defendants are represented by: Alan H. Scheiner, Esq. MURIEL GOODE-TRUFANT 100 Church Street, Rm. 3-174 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2344 NEWELL BRANDS: Amended Complaint Deadline Extended to Dec. 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TINAMARIE BARRALES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03025-MLB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the schedule as follows: -- Amended Complaint due: Dec. 20, 2024 -- Motion to dismiss due: Jan. 14, 2025 -- Opposition to motion to dismiss due: Feb. 4, 2025 -- Reply due: Feb. 25, 2025 Counsel for the Plaintiff has met and conferred with counsel for the Defendant, and the Defendant does not oppose the motion. The plaintiff filed her class action complaint on July 8, 2024, and served the Defendant on Oct. 7, 2024. On Oct. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed an unopposed motion to extend its deadline to respond to the Complaint by 23 days, to Nov. 20, 2024, which the Court granted the same day. On Nov. 20, 2024, the Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). Newell offers housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware, and hair accessories. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXuJXd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: George V. Granade, Esq. REESE LLP 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515 Los Angeles, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 393-0070 E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com NTC MARKETING: Seper Consumer Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KATHERINE SEPER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NTC MARKETING INC., Case No. 24LA1405, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on November 22, 2024. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02516 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Libby's brand Chunk Pineapple and Sliced Pineapple products. NTC Marketing Inc. is a company that produces and distributes fruits, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert P. Berry, Esq. BERRY SILBERBERG STOKES PC 16150 Main Circle Drive, Suite 120 St. Louis, MO 63107 Telephone: (314) 480-5881 Facsimile: (314) 480-5884 Email: rberry@berrysilberberg.com OLIN CORP: Miami Products Appeals Denial of Class Suit Settlements ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al. have filed an appeal in their lawsuit entitled Miami Products & Chemical Company, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Olin Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-CV-00385, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case arises from the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in sodium hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by the Defendants -- all of whom are direct competitors and leading manufacturers of Caustic Soda in the United States -- during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015, to the present, under the antitrust laws. Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the electrolysis of brine or salt water. Caustic Soda is consumed by customers in a variety of industries, including paper, pulp and cellulose; chemical production; soaps and detergents; aluminum; food processing; water treatment; textiles; mineral oils; recycling; and pharmaceuticals. The Defendants are estimated to control at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic Soda. From approximately 2012 until the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic Soda prices were either declining or flat, and industry margins were poor, given industry overcapacity and flat demand. These conditions motivated the Defendants to conspire and combine to restrict domestic supply; to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which Caustic Soda was and continues to be sold; and to allocate customers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint. On Apr. 25, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which the Court denied through an Order entered by Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford on Dec. 28, 2023. On August 14, 2023, a motion for preliminary approval of settlement with Defendant Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. by Amrex Chemical Co., Inc., Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc., Miami Products & Chemical Co., Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC, Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., Vandemark Chemical, Inc. was filed in court but Judge Wolford denied the Motion on June 24, 2024. On July 8, 2024, an amended motion for for preliminary approval of settlements with Defendants Formosa Plastics Corporation U.S.A., Westlake Corporation, and Shintech Incorporated by Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., Vandemark Chemical, Inc. was filed by direct purchaser plaintiffs. On October 29, 2024, Judge Wolford issued an order denying the Amended Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval. The appellate case is captioned In Re: Caustic Soda Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 24-3001, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on November 12, 2024. The question presented reads: In an unprecedented and extraordinary series of class certification denial orders, did the district court err in denying preliminary approval of settlements and certification of a fully known settlement class on grounds of ascertainability, typicality and predominance, contrary to In re Am. Int'l. Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 689 F.3d 229, 242-43 (2nd Cir. 2012) (reversing denial of settlement class), and contrary to the purpose of Rule 23, where the settlements were achieved before the district court denied certification of a litigation class defined identically to the settlement class, where the preliminary approval motions were unopposed, and where the settling defendants had stipulated to the settlement class definition and composition? [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL COMPANY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. Elana Katcher, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 800 Third Ave., 38th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ekatcher@kaplanfox.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq. CERA LLP 201 California St., Suite 1240 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Email: scera@cerallp.com cdirksen@cerallp.com - and - Marco Cercone, Esq. R. Anthony Rupp III, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 854-3400 Facsimile: (716) 332-0336 Email: cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com rupp@rupppfalzgraf.com bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com - and - Samuel Issacharoff, Esq. 40 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 Telephone: (212) 998-6580 Email: si13@NYU.edu Defendants-Respondents OLIN CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Brian P. Crosby, Esq. Timothy J. Graber, Esq. Melissa M. Morton, Esq. GIBSON, MCASKILL & CROSBY, LLP 69 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Buffalo, NY 14202 Email: bcrosby@gmclaw.com tgraber@gmclaw.com morton@gmclaw.com - and - Steven E. Bizar, Esq. George G. Gordon, Esq. Julia Chapman, Esq. John McC1am, Esq. David Costigan, Esq. Agnese Nadalini, Esq. DECHERT LLP Three Bryant Park 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 698-3500 Facsimile: (212) 698-3599 Email: steven.bizar@dechert.com george.gordon@dechert.com julia.chapman@dechert.com john.mcclam@dechert.com david.costigan@dechert.com agnese.nadalini@dechert.com - and - Corey W. Roush, Esq. J. Matthew Schmitten, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Email: corey.roush@sidley.com jmatthew.schmitten@sidley.com - and - Stephen A. Sharkey, Esq. BOND, SCHOENECK & KING PLLC The Avant Building, Suite 900 200 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 416-7051 Facsimile: (716) 416-7351 Email: ssharkey@bsk.com ONEPOINT PATIENT: Howey Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Howey, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OnePoint Patient Care, Case No. 2:24-cv-03265-DJH (D. Ariz., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health information ("PHI"). The Defendant began sending out notice letters to its customers, stating that Defendant learned of the data breach on August 8, 2024. The letter indicates that, on August 15, 2024, Defendant learned that an unauthorized third party acquired some information from its network between August 6 and August 8, 2024. Based on Plaintiff's and Class Members' beliefs, Defendant is the entity with primary responsibility for this Data Breach. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI––and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII/PHI was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII/PHI because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to ensure that Defendant had adequate and reasonable safeguards and measures in place to protect the PII/PHI of Plaintiff and Class Members after that information was transferred and entrusted to it in the regular course of business, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided his PII/PHI to Defendant in order to obtain goods and/or services at Defendant's pharmacy in Salt Lake City, Utah. OnePoint is a hospice-dedicated pharmacy and pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com PAC HOUSING: Class Expert Disclosure Cutoff in Hills Due Dec. 13 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALVIN HILLS, et al., V. PAC HOUSING GROUP, LLC, et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-05740-BWA-KWR (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Barry Ashe entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to extend discovery cutoff. The Court further entered an order that the Court's previous orders extending and setting certain class certification deadlines are amended as follows: Item Deadline Class Fact Deposition, and Class Dec. 13, 2024 Expert Disclosure Cutoff: Class Expert Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 6, 2025 PAC is a provider of affordable homes and asset management services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EcIirz at no extra charge.[CC] PACS GROUP: New Orleans Employees' Sues Over False Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACS GROUP, INC., JASON MURRAY, DERICK APT, MICHELLE LEWIS, MARK HANCOCK, JACQUELINE MILLARD, TAYLOR LEAVITT, EVELYN DISLAVER, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, TRUIST SECURITIES, INC., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO., LLC, STEPHENS, INC., OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., UBS SECURITIES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08882 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought asserting both strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and fraud-based claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), arising from Defendants' materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding PACS' rapid growth and profitability, primarily driven by the Company's manipulation of billing practices that exploited taxpayer-funded programs. The Securities Act Defendants are liable for materially false and misleading statements contained in the SPO Materials. Plaintiff expressly excludes and disclaims any allegation that could be construed as alleging fraud or intentional reckless conduct as to the Securities Act claims. The Class Period statements and SPO Materials were materially false and misleading because they falsely represented the factors driving the Company's revenues, profits, and growth while failing to disclose the following adverse facts: that PACS inflated its Medicare revenues by misclassifying lower-acuity patients as high-acuity patients that required skilled care in violation of the COVID Waiver rules, thereby securing higher reimbursement rates; that after the expiration of the COVID Waiver, PACS inflated its revenues by fraudulently billing for unnecessary treatments and for services never provided to patients; that PACS' historical revenues, competitive advantages, and growing market share were the result of systemic, improper, unethical, and/or illegal practices, and, thus, unsustainable; that PACS' risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of these materially false and misleading statements and omissions PACS' securities traded at artificially high prices during the Class Period. Defendants took advantage of these artificially high prices and profited enormously by selling hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of PACS stock through the IPO and SPO. The truth about PACS' illicit practices, heightened regulatory risks, unsustainable revenues, and other undisclosed issues began to emerge on November 4, 2024, when Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report concerning PACS (the "Hindenburg Report"). This report detailed several allegations against the Company, including evidence of PACS' misuse of COVID waivers to inflate Medicare reimbursements as well as other unsustainable revenue practices which misrepresented the Company's financial health to investors. On this news, PACS' share price dropped $11.93 per share, or 27.8 percent, to close at $31.01 per share on November 4, 2024. Despite this report, and as discussed infra, the extent of the Company's reliance on unsustainable and potentially unlawful practices to drive revenue growth was not fully disclosed to the public. Then, on November 6, 2024, before the opening of trading, the Company announced that it would delay the release of its third-quarter 2024 financial results. PACS stated that the postponement was due to the Company's Audit Committee conducting an investigation into recent third-party allegations concerning its reimbursement and referral practices. PACS also disclosed that it had received civil investigative demands from the federal government regarding these practices, which it stated may or may not have been related to the recent third-party report. On this news, PACSs share price dropped $11.45 per share, or 38.8 percent, to close at $18.09 per share on November 6, 2024. As a result of these disclosures, the prices of PACS securities dropped significantly causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to the Company's investors, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired PACS securities during the Class Period. PACS is one of the largest operators of skilled nursing facilities ("SNFs") and post-acute care facilities in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Connor C. Boehme, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: fmcconville@labaton.com cboehme@labaton.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Lemon Suit Over Unpaid Military Leave ------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY LEMON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC. (PFG), Case No. 1:24-cv-12149 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 25, 2024) is a class action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, on behalf of all current and former full-time employees of PFG who took short-term military leave from PFG since 2004 and did not receive compensation and/or paid leave from PFG during such short-term military leave. According to the complaint, PFG has violated 38 U.S.C. section 4316(b) by paying compensation to PFG employees who take leave for non-military reasons, such as vacation, sick leave, and casual leave but not providing any compensation to PFG servicemember employees who take short-term military leave. Due to PFG's violations, the Plaintiff and other servicemembers employed by PFG have received less compensation than they would have received had PFG provided them with pay during their short-term military leave on an equal basis as employees who took other comparable forms of non-military leave. The action seeks: (a) a declaration that PFG violated USERRA by failing to provide Class Members with pay during their short-term military leave despite providing pay for comparable forms of leave; (b) an order requiring PFG to pay servicemembers on short-term military leave as it does to comparable forms of leave; and (c) an order requiring PFG to recalculate and pay compensation to Plaintiff and other members of the Class consistent with USERRA. Plaintiff Lemon was employed as a full-time truck driver for PFG since June of 2018. Mr. Lemon was also a horizontal construction engineer in the U.S. Army National Reserves, where he served from 2015 until 2020. PFG is one of the largest food distributors and suppliers in North America, with more than 150 locations in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq. Robert W. Harrer, Esq. Seth McCormick, Esq. CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C. 650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100 Lisle, IL 60532 Telephone: (312) 858-3239 E-mail: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com rob.harrer@cclc-law.com seth@cclc-law.com - and - Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Christina M. Le, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com cle@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Jamie K. Serb, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, PC 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, Ca 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: jamie@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com POPULAR INC: Final Settlement Deal Hearing Set for Jan. 27, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Popular Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York sets final settlement agreement hearing for Lipsett class suit on January 27, 2025. Popular was named as a defendant on a putative class action complaint captioned Lipsett v. Popular, Inc. d/b/a Banco Popular, filedon January 31, 2022 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking damages, restitution and injunctiverelief. Similar to the claims set forth in the aforementioned Golden complaint, Plaintiff alleged breach of contract, violations of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment, as a result of Popular's purported practice of charging OD Fees ontransactions that, under plaintiffs’ theory, do not overdraw the account. The complaint further alleged that Popular assessed ODFees over authorized transactions for which sufficient funds are held for settlement. On May 2, 2024, the parties reached a settlement in principle on a class-wide basis. On July 25, 2024, the parties filed before the Court a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and, on July 26, 2024, the Court issued an order grantingpreliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The Court scheduled the final approval hearing of the settlement agreement for January 27, 2025. Popular, Inc. is a diversified, publicly-owned financial holding company subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Corporation has operations in Puerto Rico, the mainland United States and the U.S. and British Virgin Islands. PRIMECARE MEDICAL: Stafford Seeks to Certify Issue-Based Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN STAFFORD, Executor of the Estate of THOMAS FLEENOR, JR., et al., v. PRIMECARE MEDICAL, INC., et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00405 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification of an issue-based class pursuant to Rule 23(c). Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) based upon the satisfaction of all necessary prerequisites. PrimeCare offers a customized health care program that includes medical, mental health, dental, pharmacy, laboratory, nursing services, risk management, etc. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q60wVk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen P. New, Esq. Emilee B. Wooldridge, Esq. STEPHEN NEW & ASSOCIATES 430 Harper Park Drive Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 250-6017 Facsimile: (304) 250-6012 E-mail: steve@newtaylorlaw.com - and - Amanda J. Taylor, Esq. TAYLOR, HINKLE & TAYLOR 115 1/2 S. Kanawha St. Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 894-8733 Facsimile: (681) 245-6236 E-mail: amanda@thtwv.com - and - Timothy Lupardus, Esq. THE LUPARDUS LAW OFFICE 275 Bearhole Road Pineville, WV 24874 Telephone: (304) 732-0250 E-mail: office@luparduslaw.com - and - Zachary Whitten, Esq. THE WHITTEN LAW OFFICE Pineville, WV 24874 E-zwhittenlaw@gmail.com - and - Robert Dunlap, Esq. ROBERT DUNLAP & ASSOCIATES 208 Main Street Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 255-4762 E-mail: robertdunlapesq@gmail.com PUTTHUTT NEWPORT: Nixon Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ------------------------------------------------------ Jasmine Nixon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PUTTHUTT NEWPORT, LLC D/B/A PAR 3 EAT DRINK PUTT, and MOANANUI HARETUKU, and TIFFANY LOUTSENHIZER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00201-DCR (E.D. Ky., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid compensations and unlawful retaliation. The Plaintiff was required to report to work two hours before Defendant Par 3 opened, and during that time, cleaned the dining area and bathrooms. At no point was Plaintiff paid above the tip credit. On September 3 or 4, Plaintiff raised her concerns that this practice violated the FLSA to Defendant Tiffany Loutsenhizer, Defendants' General Manager. Defendant Loutesenhizer immediately retaliated against Plaintiff by removing Plaintiff from the work schedule. Plaintiff was terminated on September 19, 2024, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a bartender/server. PAR 3 is an Idaho limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samantha B. Isaacs (0100414) FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Phone: (513) 797-2859 Fax: (513) 943-6669-fax Email: sbl@finneylawfirm.com REAL TIME: Jimenez Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions, Inc. The case is styled as Daniel Jimenez, Deborah Jimenez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00979-UA-LPA (M.D.N.C., Nov. 21, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Real Time Resolutions -- https://www.realtimeresolutions.com/ -- is a full-service loan servicing and recovery company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and other consumer loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Scarbrough, Esq. SCARBROUGH & SCARBROUGH 141 Union Street South Concord, NC 28025 Phone: (704) 782-3112 Email: johnscarbrough@fspa.net RO HEALTH LLC: Wilson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RO Health, LLC. The case is styled as Mirian Wilson, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and as a private attorney general pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. RO Health, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0016340 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Nov. 21, 2024). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Ro Health -- https://rohealth.com/ -- is a leading provider of school district healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C. 3856 Davids Rd. Agoura Hills, CA 91301-3642 Phone: 818-883-4900 Email: peter@dionkindemlaw.com ROBINHOOD: Must Depose Plaintiff's Experts by Feb. 14, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Robinhood Order Flow Litigation, Master File No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR, Case No. 4:20-cv-09328-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order setting the following schedule for Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification. -- The parties shall focus the renewed briefing and supplemental expert reports on the results of Plaintiff's expert's representative sample model, and the parties may incorporate by reference their prior class certification briefing and expert reports to avoid repetition of prior factual background and legal argument. -- The Defendants shall disclose the unique customer identification numbers no later than Dec. 6, 2024. -- Plaintiff shall move for class certification (10-page limit) and disclose his supplemental expert report in support of class certification no later than Jan. 23, 2025. -- The Plaintiff shall disclose his expert's computer model and any data on which it relies (other than that produced by Defendants) no later than Jan. 28, 2025. -- The Defendants shall depose Plaintiff's experts no later than Feb. 14, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WlxtW4 at no extra charge.[CC] ROMEO POWER: Class Distribution Order Entered in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Romeo Power Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-03362-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna Schofield entered a class distribution order. By Dec. 6, 2024, the claimants with disputed claims may respond to the relevant portion of the Plaintiffs' motion in a letter not to exceed three pages, to be sent to Plaintiffs' counsel who shall then file any such letters on the docket. Plaintiffs shall provide those claimants with notice of this order. Romeo Power is an energy technology company delivering electrification solutions for commercial applications. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Os5Hj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. Melissa C. Wright, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com jcohen@glancylaw.com mwright@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com RUSS' HOLDING: Kahl Sues Over Unlawful Underpayment --------------------------------------------------- Linda Kahl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. RUSS' HOLDING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01246 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought implicating the Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's ("FLSA") tip-credit and subsequent underpayment of their employees at the federally and mandated minimum wage rate. The Defendants pay their tipped employees, including servers, below the minimum wage rate by taking advantage of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA. Under the tip-credit provisions, an employer of tipped employees may, under certain circumstances, pay those employees less than the minimum wage rate by taking a "tip credit" against the employer's minimum wage obligations from the tips received from customers. As a result of these violations, Defendants lost the ability to use the tip credit and therefore must compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers at the full minimum wage rate, unencumbered by the tip credit, and for all hours worked. In other words, Defendants must account for the difference between the wages paid to Plaintiff and all similarly situated workers and the minimum wage rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Russ' Restaurant as a server. The Defendants operate at least 12 restaurants under the trade name "Russ' Restaurants" in Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Kapitan, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Phone: 216-696-5000 Facsimile: 216-696-7005 Email: robert@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com SAGE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Suit Over IPO ------------------------------------------------- Sage Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2024, that on August 28, 2024, named plaintiff Darren Korver filed a purported federal securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against the company and individuals, Barry E. Greene and Kimi Iguchi. The complaint in the Securities Class Action alleges violations of U.S. securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks an as-yet unspecified amount of damages allegedly sustained by parties who purchased Sage stock between April 12, 2021 and July 23, 2024, as well as applicable attorneys' fees and costs. Sage Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company pioneering solutions in brain health medicines. SASALA DINING USA: Quintal Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sasala Dining USA Inc., et al. The case is styled as Santos Quintal, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sasala Dining USA INC., Masao Kuribara, an individual, DOES 1 TO 10 INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC24620002 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Nov. 21, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Sasala Dining USA is a cozy restaurant nestled in the heart of San Francisco, California, offering a diverse menu of international cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jose M. Herrera, Esq. HAULK & HERRERA LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-745-3219 Email: jherrera@hhemploymentlaw.com SCHNADER HARRISON: Bennett Seeks More Time for Class Cert Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennett v. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class certification briefing deadline to Dec. 23, 2024. -- Assuming the parties' term sheet is fully executed, the parties will notify the Court and request further modification of the Scheduling Order to set a deadline for a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and for the related and unopposed motion for class certification that is necessitated by the settlement. -- In the event the term sheet is not signed, Plaintiff will file her motion for class certification on Dec. 23, 2024. Neither party will be prejudiced by this request, which will help lead to the orderly resolution of this action. Schnader is a full-service law firm. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iHYekF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Garner, Esq. THE GARNER FIRM One Penn Center 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 550 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 645-5955 Facsimile: (215) 645-5960 E-mail: adam@garnerltd.com SHIFT4 PAYMENTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in PA ---------------------------------------------------------- Shift4 Payments 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 consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On August 18, 2023, a shareholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned O’Meara v. Shift4 Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03206-JFL (the "O'Meara Action"). Plaintiff O’Meara seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's securities between November 10, 2021 and April 18, 2023. On October 13, 2023, another shareholder represented by the same law firm as O'Meara filed a similar complaint against the same defendants in the Court, captioned Baer v. Shift4 Payments, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03969-JFL (the "Baer Action"). Plaintiff Baer seeks to represent purchasers of the Company's securities between June 5, 2020, and April 18, 2023. Both complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies, and both seek unspecified damages. On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff Baer filed a motion to consolidate the O'Meara Action and the Baer Action and appoint Baer as lead plaintiff. On November 3, 2023, the Court consolidated the O'Meara and Baer Actions and appointed Plaintiff Baer as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. Lead Plaintiff Baer and Plaintiff O'Meara filed an amended complaint on January 5, 2024, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between June 5, 2020 and April 18, 2023, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on February 19, 2024. The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss on August 14, 2024, with leave to amend. Lead Plaintiff Baer filed a second amended complaint on September 3, 2024, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between June 5, 2020 and October 21, 2022. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 1, 2024. A hearing is not yet scheduled on the Company’s motion to dismiss. The Company disputes the allegations in the above-referenced matters, intends to defend the matters vigorously, and believes that the claims are without merit. SHIFT4 PAYMENTS, INC. provides payment processing solutions. The Company offers software for transaction and money transfer activities. [BN] SHOALS TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in TN -------------------------------------------------------------- Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that Company continues to defend itself from consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. On March 21, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a putative securities class action against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, captioned Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the wire insulation shrinkback matter. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, recovery of fees and costs, and other relief that the court may find appropriate. On May 8, 2024 and May 15, 2024, respectively, similar class action complaints were filed in the same court against the Company and certain current and former officers, but these complaints also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors, and the selling shareholders and underwriters of the Company's secondary public offering. While the allegations are largely similar to the first complaint, these new complaints also alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. These cases were captioned Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. and Kissimmee Utility Authority Employees Retirement Plan v. Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. On May 24, 2024, all of these cases were consolidated into one action captioned In re Shoals Technologies Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. Plaintiff Erste Asset Management GmbH has been appointed Lead Plaintiff, and the court has entered a schedule for motion to dismiss briefing. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims, there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. Based in Portland, TN, Shoals Technologies provides EBOS products for solar energy projects in the United States. It sells solar products principally to engineering, procurement, and construction firms that build such solar energy projects. [BN] SIEMENS MOBILITY: Class Cert Filing Reset to March 6, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keopadubsy v. Siemens Mobility, Case No. 2:20-cv-01412 (E.D. Cal., July 13, 2020), the Hon. Judge Kimberly J. Mueller entered an order resetting motion to certify class for March 6, 2025. -- Mr Keopadubsy filed motion to certify class for March 18, 2024. -- The filing party is reminded to submit a Proposed Order in Word Format to kjmorders@caed.uscourts.gov pursuant to Judge Mueller's Civil Standing Order. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment. Siemens Mobility, part of Siemens AG, provides rail traffic technology that helps transform the everyday for everyone.[CC] SIENNA MARKETING: Matiatos Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SPIRIDON MATIATOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SIENNA MARKETING & CONSULTING, INC. D/B/A CREATIVE CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:24-cv-09028 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wage compensation for Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers who have worked for the Defendant in New York as Associate Business Finance Loan Brokers, referred here as Cold Callers. The Defendant's business is premised on hiring Cold Callers whose primary purpose is to call as many businesses as possible and market Defendant's services and products. The Defendant's services and products include but are not limited to credit card processing, Merchant Cash Advance consolidation, term loans, working capital, SBA loans, AR factoring, hard money, and bridge loans. While employed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and similarly situated Cold Callers consistently worked over 40 hours per week without receiving premium overtime pay for all hours worked, says the suit. Throughout the relevant period, it was the Defendant's policy to deprive Plaintiff and similarly situated Cold Callers of their earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. Jocelyn Small, Esq. KESSLER MATURA P.C. 534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 E-mail: tkessler@kesslermatura.com jsmall@kesslermatura.com SIG SAUER: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by Jan. 8, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed April 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order granting motion to amend/correct as follows. -- The Defendant shall designate class certification experts and file its opposition brief to Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before Jan. 28, 2025 -- The Plaintiff shall file his reply brief to his motion for class certification on or before Feb. 25. 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. SIG Sauer is a Swiss brand name of firearms originally manufactured in Neuhausen am Rheinfall.[CC] STATE FARM: Violates No-Fault Insurance Act, Brown Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- ABIGAIL M. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-01263 (W.D. Mich., Nov. 26, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of all individuals who received allowable expenses in the form of family provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits under Mich. Comp. Laws section 500.3101, et seq., the Michigan Automobile No-Fault Insurance Act. The No-Fault Act, subsection 3107(1)(a) provides that an injured person is entitled to recover what are known as "allowable expenses" consisting of "all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation." Court decisions have made it clear that in-home attendant care rendered by family, friends, and neighbors of the injured person are compensable allowable expenses under the No-Fault Act. This No-Fault benefit lets injured accident victims hire outside help or employ family members, so that the injured person can remain in the home environment rather than be institutionalized. The suit only involves the reasonable value of family provided/non-agency provided attendant care benefits. There is no issue as to whether the care was reasonably necessary or related to the motor vehicle accident; whether the charge was actually incurred, adequately supported or timely filed; nor any other common defense to a No-Fault claim. To be sure, the Defendant no-fault insurers have (1) approved all the no-fault claims for attendant care benefits, (2) for all class members, (3) for the entirety of the class period, and (4) Defendants have issued payment on the claims, albeit at an improper and unreasonably low rate. Plaintiff Brown, a resident and citizen of Kent County Michigan and is providing attendant care benefits to her husband, Larry R. Brown, Jr. Larry R. Brown, Jr. was injured in an automobile accident and his PIP claim, No. 22-27H8-98, was adjusted and paid by State Farm. Larry R. Brown, Jr. was prescribed attendant care that exceeds 40 hours per week, and Plaintiff provided her husband's attendant care, at over 40 hours per week. STATE FARM is a reciprocal insurance exchange and thus an unincorporated association.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason J. Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: 248.355.0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com - and - Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. LISS & ANDREWS, P.C. 39400 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 647-9700 E-mail: nandrews@lissfirm.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, 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 - and - Robert M. Giroux, Esq. GIROUX PAPPAS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 28588 Northwestern Highway, Suite 100 Southfield, MI 48034 Telephone (248) 531-8665 E-mail: rgiroux@greatmiattorneys.com STUMPTOWN COFFEE: Picon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Yelitza Picon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stumptown Coffee Corp., Case No. 1:24-cv-08904 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Comer Table Restaurants provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.stumptowncoffee.com (hereinafter "Stumptowncoffee.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Stumptowncoffee.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stumptown Coffee's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Stumptowncoffee.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com TARGET CORPORATION: Payton Sues Over Deceptive Practices -------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Payton, individually and of behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-08116 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought under New York General Business Law seeking to redress these deceptive practices of Defendant that have caused thousands of consumers to pay a premium and considerably more for their allegedly unlocked iPhones than they should otherwise have paid. The Defendant engages in a class bait-and-switch deceptive marketing scheme aimed at consumers hoping to purchase an iPhone that is compatible with any phone carrier. Defendant lures consumers into purchasing an iPhone that is advertised as "Unlocked" when in reality the phone is locked. Because the iPhones are actually locked, the phone contains certain software and antennae that are tied to a specific carrier, like AT&T or Verizon, requiring consumers to pay an additional fee to unlock the phone for use with other carriers. Because the monetary damages suffered by each customer are small compared to the much higher cost a single customer would incur in trying to challenge Defendant's unlawful practices, it makes no financial sense for an individual customer to bring his or her own lawsuit. Thus, only through a class action can Defendant's injured customers remedy this ongoing wrongdoing. With this class action, Plaintiff seeks to put an end to Defendant's unfair business practices and hold them accountable for the damages it has caused to consumers and continues to cause, says the complaint. The Plaintiff decided to purchase an unlocked iPhone during the busy shopping season of 2023. Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 48Wall Street, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10005 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ross@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com TASTE BUDS DELI: Marquez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Conde Marquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. TASTE BUDS DELI INC (D/B/A TASTE BUDS DELI), NOBERTO SANCHEZ, DELIA SANCHEZ, and ABDO N YAFAI, Case No. 1:24-cv-08114 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor codified (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants have failed to provide timely wages to the Plaintiff Defendants' conduct extended beyond the Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a deli worker and cashier at the deli. The Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located in Queens, New York under the name "Taste Buds Deli."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Class Cert Filing in Holdco Extended to Dec. 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOAGF HOLDCO LP, LAWRENCE HANDORF, PHT HOLDING II LP, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Mark Roberts entered an order extending the class certification deadlines as follows: -- The Plaintiffs' class certification expert Dec. 18, 2024 reports and motion for class certification: -- The Defendant's class certification expert Jan. 22, 2025 reports and resistance to class certification: -- The Plaintiffs' rebuttal class certification Feb. 19, 2025 expert reports and reply in support of class certification: -- All other deadlines remain unchanged. Transamerica offers life, health, and dental insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fiEBWD at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Maintain Docs Publicly Available ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEFINA DOE; ISABELA DOE; COMMOR JEROME WELCH; FELIPE NIOMAR MARTINEZ ORTIZ; and JOSE DOE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and THE AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE, IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (“ICE”); ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity; PATRICK J. LECHLEITNER, Acting Director of ICE, in his official capacity; DANIEL A. BIBLE, Executive Associate Director of ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations, in his official capacity; CAMMILLA WAMSLEY, Field Office Director for the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in her official capacity; FRANCIS KEMP, Assistant Field Office Director for the ICE Philadelphia Field Office, in his official capacity, Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-PLD (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order permitting certain publicly available documents previously electronically filed to be maintained as such on the public docket. Because there exists good cause in favor of permitting the current public versions of the declarations and exhibits to be maintained in redacted form, the Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this unopposed motion and direct the Clerk to maintain ECF Nos. 2-4, 2-5, 2- 8, 2-9, 2-10, 2-11, 2-12 in redacted form. The confidential information contained in these exhibits constitutes information that would reveal the identity of certain Plaintiffs, non-party witnesses, and class members and would violate their privacy. The redactions are limited to protect those privacy interests. On Sept. 11, 2024, the Individual Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel. On Oct. 31, 2024, this matter was transferred from the District of New Jersey to this Court. The Class Certification Motion attached nine (9) declarations and associated exhibits. Six (6) declarations and associated exhibits were filed under seal. United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GT5yBu at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pro Bono Counsel for Plaintiffs Shira Wisotsky, Esq. Raquiba Huq, Esq. Zoe Burke, Esq. Emily Thorton, Esq. LEGAL SERVICES OF NEW JERSEY 100 Metroplex Drive, Suite 402 Edison, NJ 08818-1357 Telephone: (732) 572-9100 - and - Gavin J. Rooney, Esq. Alexander Shalom, Esq. Natalie J. Kraner, Esq. Naomi D. Barrowclough, Esq. Anish Patel, Esq. Ruth Zimmerman, Esq. LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 262-6700 Facsimile: (212) 262-7402 - and - Tiffany J. Lieu, Esq. Philip L. Torrey, Esq. CRIMMIGRATION CLINIC HARVARD IMMIGRATION & REFUGEE CLINICAL PROGRAM UNLIMITED PIZZA: Bid for Conditional Status Due March 28, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REUBEN WEST, v. UNLIMITED PIZZA POTENTIAL, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00007-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered a scheduling order as follows: Deadline for FLSA conditional class March 28, 2025 certification motion: Deadline for Rule 23 class certification Dec. 19, 2025 motion: Deadline for motions directed to the To be filed no later pleadings, deadline for motions to amend than 60 days after the pleadings and/or add parties: close of the FLSA conditional certification opt-in notice period. Deadline for amended joint discovery plan: To be filed within 30 days of the Court's ruling on Rule 23 class certification Telephone status conference: To be set within 30 days of the Court's ruling on Rule 23 class certification This Court will set the following deadlines after receiving the parties' amended joint discovery plan: expert disclosure(s) and report(s), rebuttal expert disclosure(s) and report(s), disclosure of non-expert (fact) witness(es), discovery, and dispositive motions. IT IS SO ORDERED Unlimited Potential is a local pizzeria, offering a variety of pizza options to its customers. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2bXgfR at no extra charge.[CC] UPS STORE: Class Cert Conference in McLaren Set for Dec. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCLAREN v. THE UPS STORE, INC., et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-14424 (D.N.J., Filed July 30, 2021), the Hon. Judge Edward S. Kiel entered an order as follows: -- The Clerk's Office is directed to terminate the motion docketed as entry no.133. -- There will be an in-person conference on Dec. 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3C to address class certification discovery and scheduling. -- The parties should meet and confer prior to this conference (by telephone or video conference) and attempt to refine and resolve the issues in dispute and counsel shall establish an ESI protocol. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. The UPS Store is a franchised subsidiary of United Parcel Service which provides.[CC] USHEALTH ADVISORS: Bid to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KRAEMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, a Texas company, Case No. 3:24-cv-00275-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order denying the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended class action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The stay of discovery is lifted. The Final Pretrial Conference and Jury Trial are reset for Nov. 5, 2026, at 10:00 a.m., and Nov. 16, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., respectively. Within 21 days, the parties are DIRECTED to meet, confer, and report on a proposed scheduling and discovery order, which shall be submitted to DWDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov for the Court’s review. The parties are also directed to use the correct form for the proposed scheduling and discovery order. The Court the allegations of the First Amended Class Action Complaint, on the whole and viewed in Plaintiff's favor, plausibly state a claim to relief under section 227(c)(5) and section 64.1200(d). Plaintiff defines the proposed classes as follows: Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through trial (1) Defendant, or an agent calling on behalf of the Defendant, called/texted more than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person's telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (4) for substantially the same reason that Defendant called/texted Plaintiff." Internal Do Not Call Registry Class: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) the Defendant called/texted more than one time, (2) within any 12 month period (3) for substantially the same reason Defendant called/texted Plaintiff, (4) including at least once after the person requested that they stop calling and/or sending text messages." USHealth Advisors markets and sells health insurance plans to consumers in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RrWH7o at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Discriminates Black Customers, Brewster Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ Nekeeya Brewster and Raymond Brewster, et al. v. Walmart Inc., a foreign for-profit corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-01227-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2024) is a class action complaint arising from Walmart alleged discrimination against Black customers. According to the complaint, Walmart security and related personnel profile Black customers who have done nothing wrong based on little or no evidence other than their race. The Brewsters, the proposed class representatives, bring this matter on their own behalf and on behalf of the Proposed Class. The Proposed Class is defined as Black customers of Walmart over the past two years that have been discriminated against by Walmart and/or Walmart employees via security-related profiling based upon their race. In 2022, Walmart was found liable for profiling Michael Mangum, a Black man at a Walmart in Wood Village, Oregon. A jury found that Walmart security followed Mangum around the store even though a subsequent police report found that "Mr. Mangum was not acting violently, did not seem drunk or high, and told the [911] operator, 'he just keeps checking me out.'" CNN reported that the reporting police department Shift Commander said deputies on his shift had become "extremely frustrated with a pattern of behavior that they had identified" in the Walmart employee calling 911 to report "dangerous active situations such as customers physically assaulting him or loss prevention employees or other Walmart employees while trying to steal and then the deputies determining that that never actually happened," says the suit. Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets (also called supercenters), discount department stores, and grocery stores in the United States and 23 other countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rory J. Diamond, Esq. Charles T. Douglas, Jr. Jeremiah Blocker, Jr. DOUGLAS LAW FIRM 100 Southpark Blvd, Suite 414 Saint Augustine, Florida 32086 Telephone: (800) 705-5457 E-mail: rory@dhclawyers.com charlie@dhclawyers.com jeremiah@dhclawyers.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Plaintiffs Have Until Dec. 13 to File Class Reply ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY FLUMERFELT, FRANCES RIDENOUR, ANTHONY HAMILTON and HOLLY HAMILTON, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF WAYNE, RICHARD SOLLARS, in his official and individual capacities, JEFFERY BAUM, in his official and individual capacities, SHADY AWAD REALTY TRANSITION LLC, TAYLOR REHAB TWO LLC, HADIR ALTOON TAYLOR SOUTH INVESTMENT LLC, and ABIGAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-10067-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge F. Kay Behm entered an order that: -- The Plaintiffs have until Dec. 13, 2024, to reply in support of their motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLoWg4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel J. Pifko, Esq. MCALPINE PC 3201 University Dr., Suite 200 Auburn Hills, MI 48326 Telephone: (248) 373-3700 E-mail: dpifko@mcalpinelawfirm.com - and - Scott F. Smith, Esq. SMITH LAW GROUP PLLC 30833 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 200 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 302-7181 E-mail: smithsflaw@gmail.com The Defendant are represented by: Nasseem S. Ramin, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 Telephone: (313) 568-5326 E-mail: nramin@dykema.com - and - Thomas P. Bruetsch, Esq. SCHENK & BRUETSCH PLC 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 1410 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 774-1000 WILMINGTON TRUST: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Dec. 23 --------------------------------------------------- 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 Hon. Judge entered a class certification order as follows: -- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a Dec. 23, 2024 motion for class certification is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file a response is 30 days after Plaintiff files his motion for class certification. -- 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 (D.I. 62) shall remain the same. Wilmington is a provider of international corporate and institutional services, investment management, and private banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mEwFVS 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 WISCONSIN: Robillard "GPS" Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN ROBILLARD and SARA DOMRES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GRACE KNUTSON, in her individual capacity and official capacity as Director of Sex Offender Programs for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- certifying this case as a class action on behalf of all persons currently or in the future who are subject to GPS monitoring by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections who are on extended supervision (e.g., parole or another form of criminal supervision); and -- appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel. Because the named Plaintiffs are prepared to vigorously pursue class-wide relief and because they are represented by competent and experienced counsel, they satisfy Rule 23(a)(4)’s adequacy requirements. The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated persons who are subject to the Department's policy and practice and therefore at risk of being wrongfully arrested and detained due to the Department's policy The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, challenge the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections' policy of issuing arrest warrants on the weekends for individuals on extended supervision who are suspected of having tampered with their GPS monitors without taking reasonable measures to confirm whether the suspected tampering alert is related to an equipment malfunction. The Plaintiffs allege that the Department's policy violates the Fourth Amendment. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vIe6h4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net WOOL & PRINCE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE v. Wool & Prince, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-12199 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated against Wool & Prince for failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://woolandprince.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. Woolandprince.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Wool & Prince. Yet, Woolandprince.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Wool & Prince excludes the blind and visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit. 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 Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com WUTECH CALIFORNIA: Acuna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against WUTECH CALIFORNIA INC., et al. The case is styled as Joseph Isaac Acuna, Jr. on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WUTECH CALIFORNIA INC., Case No. 24STCV30802 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 21, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Wutech California Inc was founded in 2005. The company is located in Arcadia and incorporated in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ginzburg Daniel, Esq. 13428 Maxella Ave, # 984 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-5620 Phone: 424-251-8405 XCEL ENERGY: Parker Seeks Class Cert Bid Deadlines Extension ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONNIE PARKER d/b/a SPRING CREEK RANCH, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, v. XCEL ENERGY SERVICES, INC., SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY & OSMOSE UTILITIES SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00078-Z-BV (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter the modified class-certification schedule as follows: Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Close of Class Certification Jan. 17, 2025 Feb. 14, 2025 Discovery Plaintiff's Initial Nov. 27, 2024 Dec. 18, 2024 Designation of Experts Defendants' Responsive Dec. 13, 2024 Jan. 17, 2025 Designation of Experts Rebuttal Experts on Class Dec. 27, 2024 Jan. 31, 2025 Certification Motion for Class Jan. 31, 2025 Feb. 28, 2025 Certification Response to Motion for Class Feb. 28, 2025 March 28, 2025 Certification Reply in Support of Motion March 21, 2025 April 18, 2025 for Class Certification In the event that the mediation does not resolve Plaintiff’s individual claim, the Parties will not be prejudiced by the modification proposed, as it would delay briefing on class certification by only approximately four weeks. Xcel offers wind, solar, biomass, hydro, and other renewable energy grants. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQu7Mk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek Potts, Esq. J. Ryan Fowler, Esq. Michael P. Mitchell, Esq. THE POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 963.8881 Facsimile: (713) 583.5388 E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com rfowler@potts-law.com mmitchell@potts-law.com - and - Matthew W. Sherwood, Esq. MCCARN, WEIR, & SHERWOOD Attorneys at Law 605 South Fillmore, Suite #530 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 223.4388 E-mail: msherwood@mwlawfirm.com XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for class certification pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2). 1. Each representative plaintiff has an oil and gas lease that is being and/or has been operated and administered by defendant XTO 2. For the reasons set forth in Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of Amended Motion for Class Certification, which is incorporated herein, the prerequisites for class certification contained in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) have been satisfied for the following class for Count I of the Amended Complaint: "Every individual and entity who possessed a royalty ownership interest in an oil and gas lease with XTO covering oil and gas interests at any time during the period of limitations (a) who received one or more royalty payments from XTO; (b) whose oil and gas lease covered gas that was or is gathered on the Jefferson, Forward or AK Steel gathering segments of the Mountain Gathering system in Butler County, Pennsylvania, and (c) whose oil and gas lease states that XTO is to pay Lessor as a royalty, for the native gas and casinghead gas or other gaseous substances (including shale gas), produced from said land and sold or used beyond the well or for the extraction of gasoline or other product, an amount equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the sales proceeds actually received by Lessee from the sale of such production, less fifteen percent (15%) of all "Post Production Costs," and less fifteen percent (15%) of any and all taxes, including production, severance, and ad valorem taxes. As used in this provision, Post Production Costs shall include, without limitation, (i) all losses of produced volumes (whether by use as fuel, line loss, flaring, venting or otherwise) and (ii) all costs actually incurred by Lessee from and after the wellhead to the point of sale, including, without limitation, all gathering, dehydration, compression, treatment, processing, marketing, and transportation costs incurred in connection with the sale of such production. Lessor acknowledges and agrees that this lease (i) expressly provides that the Lessor shall bear part of the costs incurred between the wellhead and the point of sale, (ii) identifies with particularity the specific deductions Lessee intends to take from the royalty, and (iii) indicates the method of calculating the amount to be deducted from the royalty for Post Production Costs[.] or includes essentially identical language. The class for Count I excludes: the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. XTO Energy is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iT71lU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP 411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 ZARBEE'S INC: Plaintiffs' Class Cert Reply Due Feb. 25, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL LOPEZ and DAMANY BROWNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ZARBEE'S, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-04465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles Breyer entered an order setting class certification deadlines as follow: Event Deadline Plaintiffs' reply in support of Feb. 25, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: Plaintiffs' opposition to the Weir Daubert Feb. 25, 2025 Motion: Zarbee's Reply in Support of the Weir Mar. 18, 2025 Daubert Motion: Hearings on (i) Plaintiffs' motion for Mar. 28, 2025 class Certification and (ii) Zarbee's Weir Daubert Motion: Zarbee's produces pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SGKHBQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: jonas@dovel.com simon@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Joshua Kipnees, Esq. Steven A. Zalesin, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2110 E-mail: jkipnees@pbwt.com sazalesin@pbwt.com - and - Gary T. Lafayette, Esq. Brian H. Chun, Esq. LAFAYETTE & KUMAGAI LLP 1300 Clay Street, Suite 810 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 357-4600 Facsimile: (415) 357-4605 E-mail: glafayette@lkclaw.com bchun@lkclaw.com ZOOMINFO TECHNOLOGIES: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Class 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 Publicity Act violations class suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On February 10, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Datanyze, LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging Datanyze's use of Illinois residents’ names in a free trial violates the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, and seeking statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division). 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. ********* 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 ***