/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 5, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 244 Headlines 21 MAIN NORTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response AIR METHODS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $240,000 ALLIANCE CREDIT: Auto Loan Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery in Middleton Suit AMPAM PARKS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 13, 2025 APPLE INC: Faces Bargo Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling ASHLEY YOUTH: Judge Approves $75-Mil. Sexual Abuse Suit Settlement BANDLAB US: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Knowles Claims BEAUTY HEALTH: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Jan. 15, 2025 BNP PARIBAS: Court Appoints Notice Administrator in Kashef Suit BNP PARIBAS: Court Appoints Special Master in Kashef, et al. Suit BOEING STORES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Alleges BRITISH COLUMBIA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Lemon Creek Fuel Spill BROOKLYN 86TH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Layne Says BUILDING BLUE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Alfaro Suit Says CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Arbitration Bid in Vargas Suit Granted in Part CASSAVA SCIENCES: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony CO LO OF MO: Carpenter Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA COSTCO WHOLESALE: Costan Sues Over Fish Oils' False Advertising DDR MEDIA: Jornaya's Summary Judgment Bid in Williams Suit Granted DELTA GALIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Picon Suit Alleges DENTSPLY SIRONA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit DIRECT GUARD: Durant Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA DOMINO'S PIZZA: Employees Sue Over Underpaid Wages ENG SALES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Aventisub, et al. Lawsuit ETHICAL CULTURE: Court Refuses to Seal Documents in Wright Suit EXXON MOBIL: Ford County Sues Over Recyclability of Plastics FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims FULL SAIL: M.D. Florida Refuses to Stay Buxton TCPA Class Suit GEO SECURE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Mazzei Suit GIBRALTAR HOSPITALITY: Settlement in Vasquez Suit Has Final Nod GOOGLE LLC: Faces GBP7-Bil. Anticompetitive Class Suit in UK GRETCHEN WHITMER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GRIMMWAY ENT: Faces Allegretti Over Contaminated Carrot Products HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 30, 2026 HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit HUNTINGDON STATE: Court Rules on Plaintiff's Amended Complaints ILLINOIS: Court Tosses Petition for Writ of Mandamus in French Suit INJURED WORKERS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.075-Mil. IROQUOIS NURSING: Settlement in Pallotta Suit Has Final Approval J GILBERTS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline JKS HOME: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Preliminary Approval JOHNSON CITY, TN: Bid for Protective Order in B.P. Suit Granted JOHNSON CITY, TN: Jenkins Wins Bid to Quash Protective Order KANAWHA COUNTY, WV: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due May 16, 2025 KANSAS: Court Dismisses Hollins v. KDOC Staff Without Prejudice KARS4KIDS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dugger Due Oct. 17, 2025 KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Has Until Dec. 11 to File Response LJUBLJANA INTER: Opposition to Class Cert Revised to Jan. 6, 2025 MAINE: Court Dismisses Bryan Suit w/o Prejudice MATCH GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MDL 2724: Oral Argument on EPPs' Class Cert Bids Set for Dec. 17 MENTAL HEALTH: Spencer FLSA Suit Decertified as Collective Action MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Guerrero Suit Gets Final Approval MIAMI-DADE, FL: Seeks Dec. 16 Extension to File Class Cert Response MILLENNIA TAX: McCoy Wins Bid for Class Certification MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 12, 2025 MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Seeks Conditional Cert. of Field Worker Class NFHS NETWORK: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Kasper Suit Stayed NISSAN NORTH: Sixth Cir. Court Rejects Brake Class Action Suit OAK RIDGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hoipkemier Initial Complaint PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Bosarge Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Burch Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Elliott Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Larson Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Rudolph Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Salanoa Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Sevasin Civil Rights Lawsuit PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Starkgraf Civil Rights Lawsuit PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN: Settles Insurance Class Suit for $61-Mil. RAW SPORT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges REZOLUT CENTRELAKE: Court Remands Ramirez Case to State Court ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Privacy Class Suit After Cyberattack RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Court Dismisses Morris Suit w/o Prejudice SAFE STREETS: USA: Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Court Nod SCHNADER HARRISON: Nears Settlement in ERISA Class Action SECURITAS SECURITY: Refuses to Pay Full Wages, Carrasquillo Says SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class Due May 6, 2025 STATE FARM: Seeks Summary Judgement in Undervalued ACVs Class Suit TECH MAHINDRA: Kent's EPOA Suit Stayed Pending Branson Decision TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Stay Avery, et al Case Granted in Part TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Scheduling of Telephonic Conference Sought TOTAL RENAL: Spencer Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court TRANSCORE LP: Plaintiff Loses Bid to Amend Certain Dismissed Claims TRC STAFFING: Court Suspends Class Certification Deadlines TRINITY TEEN: Gozun Terminated as Class Representative TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 23 UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Wins Class Certification Bid UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Rules on Motions to Seal in Samson Suit USAA CASUALTY: Fails to Pay Full Purchasing Fees, Forte Alleges VALVE CORPORATION: Wolfire Games Wins Bid for Class Certification VENUS CONCEPT: Boston Robotic Wins Bid to Temporarily Lift Stay VERIZON ONLINE: Court Stays Cabrera Suit Pending Arbitration VIVA TIME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Alleges VOLVO CARS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Jan. 24, 2025 VUORI INC: Parties Seek Initial OK of Class Action Settlement WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Gender Pay Gap Suit for $43.25-Mil. WESTLAKE SERVICES: Parties Seek Continuance of Dec. 12 Hearing WOLFSPEED INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Jan. 17 WOOD RESIDENTIAL: Has Until Dec. 4 to Answer Amended Nelson Suit ZETA GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 21 ********* 21 MAIN NORTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert 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 granting an extension of time to file their response to the Plaintiffs' collective motion until Dec. 10, 2024. The Plaintiffs' counsel does not oppose the extension of time to file a response to Plaintiffs' collective motion until Dec. 10, 2024, but the Plaintiffs states their agreement to an extension is subject to Defendants filing a response to the motion for conditional certification on or before Dec. 10, 2024. On Nov. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification. On Nov. 25, 2024, the Defendants filed an expedited motion to stay conditional certification briefing pending resolution of the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss and motion for more definite statement and that motion is pending before the Court. In an abundance of caution given the still pending deadline of today for filing a Response to Plaintiffs' Collective Motion, Defendants request an extension of the filing deadline from Nov. 26, 2024, to Dec. 10, 2024. 21 Main is a stand-alone prime steakhouse, sushi bar and upscale dining establishment. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CVd7R4 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 AIR METHODS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $240,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Air Methods agreed to pay $240,000 to resolve claims it failed to prevent a November 2023 data breach that compromised patient information. The Air Methods settlement benefits individuals who received direct notice that their personal information may have been compromised in the incident. The Air Methods data breach reportedly occurred when a criminal third party stole a laptop containing sensitive patient information. According to plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Air Methods is responsible for the security incident because it should have implemented reasonable cybersecurity measures to protect patient data. Air Methods is an air ambulance company that operates a fleet of helicopters and airplanes to transport patients to medical facilities. Air Methods hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $240,000 settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Air Methods settlement, consumers can receive up to $2,500 in reimbursement for data breach losses. Class members can also receive a pro rata cash payment estimated to be $75, though actual payment amounts will be adjusted based on the number of valid claims submitted. Additionally, the Air Methods data breach settlement provides two years of free Identity Defense Total Credit Monitoring by Cyex. This service provides state-of-the-art identity theft protection and credit monitoring services. The exclusion and objection deadline was Nov. 12, 2024. The final approval hearing is scheduled for Jan. 10, 2025. The claim form deadline is Dec. 11, 2024. Who's Eligible All individuals who received direct notice that their personal information may have been compromised in a November 2023 security incident Potential Award $2,575 Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, bills, invoices, etc. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 12/11/2024 Case Name Williams et al. v. Air Methods LLC, Case No.1:24-cv-00642-NRN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Final Hearing 01/10/2025 Settlement Website AirMethodsSettlement.com Claims Administrator Air Methods Settlement c/o Settlement Administrator PO Box 25191 Santa Ana, CA 92799 info@AirMethodsSettlement.com 5866-610-9306 Class Counsel David K Lietz Gary M Klinger MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN Defense Counsel Casie D Collignon Keeley O Cronin BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] ALLIANCE CREDIT: Auto Loan Class Settlement Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ CU Today reports that the $377-million Alliance has settled a class-action lawsuit over alleged "deceptive" auto repossessions. CUToday.info recently reported that the number of wrongful auto repossessions is growing. Judge Joseph Whyte of St. Louis City Circuit Court on gave preliminary approval to the settlement and the class that the plaintiff's attorney said will have about 300 members. A hearing is set for Feb. 13 for the judge to order judgment, St. Louis Business Journal reported. Ben McIntosh of St. Louis-based SWMW Law LLC filed the lawsuit in October 2023 on behalf of Terrell Bailey, alleging that the Fenton-based credit union failed to send proper statutory notice to consumers before and after selling their collateral on allegedly defaulted auto loans. The credit union rejected the allegation in court filings, St. Louis Business Journal said. McIntosh said the credit union's pre-sale notice incorrectly informed debtors that their collateral would be sold at a "private sale," but the post-sale notice said collateral was sold at a "public sale." The form also violated state Uniform Commercial Code laws by not stating a time and place of the sale, preventing borrowers from monitoring or participating in a public auction, he said, St. Louis Business Journal reported. The class action settlement requires Alliance Credit Union to wipe out about $3.6 million in debt to class members; create a $500,000 fund for class member payments, attorney's fees and expenses; and ask credit reporting agencies to remove negative information from their credit scores. McIntosh estimated the class members each will get less than $1,000 in cash. He didn't have a precise figure for the attorney's fees that he will seek, St. Louis Business Journal said. The class covers those whom the credit union mailed a pre-sale or post-sale notice after Aug. 24, 2017. Excluded from the class are those for whom Alliance Credit Union has received a final deficiency judgment and those who filed for bankruptcy after the date on their pre-sale notice and had such debt discharged in bankruptcy, St. Louis Business Journal said. [GN] AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Loses Bid to Stay Discovery in Middleton Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Brooks G. Severson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denies the Defendants' motion to stay discovery in the lawsuit captioned JAY MIDDLETON, et al., Plaintiffs v. Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.). The matter come before the Court on the Motion to Stay Discovery filed by Defendants Amentum Government Services Parent Holdings LLC, Amentum Benefits Administration Committee, Amentum Retirement & Investment Committee, Tammy Woodman, Greg Robinson, Bob Rudisin, Debbie Bechtel, Angie Myers, Alice McAbee, Matt Stone, Jake Kennedy, Larry Goldman, Ann McRitchie, DynCorp International LLC, The Retirement and Employee Benefit Plans Committee, and Barbara Walker. The Defendants ask the Court to stay all discovery until the District Judge decides its pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs Jay Middleton and George Lawrence, individually and on behalf of the Amentum 401(K) Retirement Plan and Dyncorp International Savings Plan, and all others similarly situated oppose the requested stay. The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint over a year ago on Oct. 10, 2023. The litigation has been complicated by numerous motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants, which have prompted the Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint multiple times. The currently operative Complaint, the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Class Action Complaint, was filed on Aug. 19, 2024 ("operative Complaint"). The lawsuit is a putative class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") on behalf of the individually named Plaintiffs, as well as the Amentum Plan, the DynCorp Plan ("the Amentum Plan," the "DynCorp Plan," or collectively "the Plans"), and all persons who were and/or are participants in or beneficiaries of either or both of the Plans. The Plaintiffs bring this case against the Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plans, for breaches of their fiduciary duties during the Class Period (defined as the six-year period preceding the filing of the original Complaint in this case through the date of judgment). The operative Complaint includes the following causes of action: 1) breach of ERISA fiduciary duties as to the DynCorp Plan (Count 1); 2) breach of ERISA fiduciary duty as to the Amentum Plan (Count 2); 3) failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries as to the DynCorp Plan (Count 3); failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries as to the Amentum Plan (Count 4); breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty as to the DynCorp Plan (Count 5); breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty as to the Amentum Plan (Count 6); prohibited transaction as to the DynCorp Plan (Count 7); prohibited transaction as to the Amentum Plan (Count 8); breach of ERISA's anti-inurement provision as to the DynCorp Plan (Count 9); and breach of ERISA's anti-inurement provision as to the Amentum Plan (Count 10). The Plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period, the Defendants breached the duties they owed to the Plans, to the Plaintiffs, and to other participants and beneficiaries of both plans by failing to adequately monitor and control fees, expenses, and costs, allowing service providers to charge excessive fees, expenses, and costs. The Plaintiffs continue that the Defendants' mismanagement of the Plans cost the Plans and their participants millions of dollars. Thus, according to the Plaintiffs, an employer has a significant obligation to consider the fees and expenses paid by a plan. Currently pending before the District Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Defendants generally deny the Plaintiffs' allegations and argue that the Investment Claims and Forfeiture Claims are meritless, denying any wrongdoing. The Defendants contend the Plaintiffs' Investment Claims fail because the investments in the Plans were prudent and the Defendants did not breach any fiduciary duty. The Defendants contend the Forfeiture Claims fail because the conduct challenged by the Plaintiffs is settlor, not fiduciary; the use of forfeited funds as contemplated by the Plans does not breach fiduciary duties; the Plaintiffs cannot establish either a prohibited transaction or a removal or diversion of plan assets; and the Defendants did not breach any duty to monitor or any other fiduciary duty. In the present motion, the Defendants request Judge Severson to enter a stay of discovery pending the District Court's resolution of their dispositive motion. The Defendants contend their dispositive motion will dispose of the Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety. They also contend that facts sought via discovery will not impact the resolution of the dispositive motion and discovery would be wasteful and burdensome. The Plaintiffs oppose the requested stay, arguing the Defendants have not met their burden of making a strong showing that this case is so exceptional, and the circumstances are so extreme, to warrant departure from this district's general policy and prior decisions to allow discovery to proceed when a dispositive motion is pending. While the Court's analysis may not require it to review the briefing related to the pending dispositive motion, the Court, in this instance, has done so. Judge Severson says the Plaintiffs' response to the Defendants' dispositive motion presents numerous counter arguments that could potentially have merit. As a result, the Court is not confident that the case will be fully resolved via the pending motion to dismiss. To be clear, the Court does not presume to predict how the District Judge will rule on the motion. Rather, the Court is merely pointing out that the Plaintiffs raise viable counter arguments against dismissal at this early stage in the litigation. The Court does not view the pending motion to dismiss as any more or less meritorious than the numerous other motions to dismiss that are filed in this District on a regular basis. As such, the Court cannot conclude that the District Judge's ruling will likely resolve the case. The Defendants also argue, among other things, that discovery would have no impact on the pending dispositive motion. Judge Severson finds that the Defendants have failed to establish that any potential discovery sought by the Plaintiffs would have no impact the pending dispositive motion. Judge Severson adds that the Defendants have not demonstrated that participating in discovery would be wasteful or burdensome enough to warrant the requested stay. Should the Defendants find that particular discovery requests (or categories of discovery requests) present an undue burden on them, Judge Severson points out that they are not foreclosed from seeking a protective order from the Court. Should this situation arise, Judge Severson directs the Defendants to meet and confer with the Plaintiffs to see if the parties can reach an agreement on whether the specific discovery can be delayed until after a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Further, Judge Severson holds that the Defendants will be required to comply with D. Kan. Rule 37.1 and contact chambers to arrange a telephone conference with opposing counsel and Judge Severson prior to filing any discovery-related motion. That stated, the Court is not inviting broad-reaching motions for protective orders and would not look favorably at any such requests. The Court is only mentioning this in the event there are particular areas of requested discovery that are too onerous to undertake unless and until the court rules its motion to dismiss. Judge Severson finds the Defendants have not met their burden to demonstrate that this is an exceptional case that warrants a stay. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have a right to see this case proceed in a timely manner. Therefore, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to stay discovery. The Court will subsequently set this case for a scheduling conference. The parties will submit a proposed Scheduling Order to the Court no later than Dec. 6, 2024, using the form found on the District of Kansas website. The Court will set this case for a Scheduling Conference in a contemporaneously filed text Order on CMECF. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5xtn3eet from PacerMonitor.com. AMPAM PARKS: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due Feb. 13, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez, et al., v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting the Ex Parte Application to Extend the Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Related Hearing Date and accompanying Declaration by counsel of record for the AMPAM Defendants, Sarah M. Adams, and Plaintiffs' Opposition. The Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Feb. 13, 2025. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is reset for March 6, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. No further extension shall be granted. AMPAM specializes in multifamily residential construction. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MQsFdH at no extra charge.[CC] APPLE INC: Faces Bargo Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling -------------------------------------------------------------- JULIAN BARGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., APPLE PAYMENTS INC., GOOGLE LLC, GOOGLE PAYMENT CORP., HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT LLC d/b/a "HIGH 5 CASINO", MW SERVICES LTD. d/b/a "WOW VEGAS", SUNFLOWER LTD. d/b/a "CROWNCOINS CASINO", and B-TWO OPERATIONS LTD. d/b/a "McLUCK.COM", Case No. 2:24-cv-10805 (D.N.J., Nov. 27, 2024) seeks to enjoin the Defendants' illegal online casino operation and to recover money lost to illegal gambling pursuant to N.J.S.A. The case is about patently illegal gambling software being distributed to the cell phones, desktop computers and other personal electronic devices of individuals throughout New Jersey and beyond, by an unlawful enterprise that includes two of the most successful corporations. The Gaming Defendants operate a slew of websites and apps with fanciful names that evoke casino enterprises, like "High 5 Casino" (Defendant HIGH 5), "McLuck" (Defendant B-TWO), "Wow Vegas" (Defendant MW SERVICES) and "CrownCoins Casino" (Defendant SUNFLOWER). The Gaming Defendants offer a multitude of digital slot machines, blackjack, poker, roulette and other forms of lottery wheel. Apple Payments is a Delaware corporation and licensed money transmitter with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas. The company provides payment processing services to various websites and other digital businesses, primarily through their digital wallet known as the "Apple Wallet" using payment systems known as "Apple Pay" and "Apple Cash". Google owns and operates the "Play Store", a platform widely available to users of GOOGLE's Android phones and others, through which they can download and obtain access to the illegal casino websites owned and operated by the Gaming Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Meyers, Esq. Gary Meyers, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF G. MARTIN MEYERS, P.C. ASHLEY YOUTH: Judge Approves $75-Mil. Sexual Abuse Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Loretta Lohberger and Georgie Burgess of ABC News report that a Tasmanian Supreme Court judge has approved a $75 million compensation payment for 129 former detainees of the state's only youth prison be approved. In Tasmania's first class action, it was alleged the former inmates had suffered, witnessed or were threatened with sexual abuse, serious physical abuse, and false imprisonment while at the Ashley Youth Detention Centre, between 1960 and 2023. Lawyer Angela Sdrinis, who led the class action, said the former detainees had finally been listened to and believed and "that is probably as important, if not more important, than the monetary compensation they will receive". When approving the settlement, Justice Stephen Estcourt described it as "momentous". "Hopefully it goes some way to repairing lives," Justice Estcourt said. Whistleblowers, lawyers and victim-survivors exchanged hugs and comforted each other outside the court. Many were reduced to tears at the conclusion of the hearing, and clapped as the final order was made by Justice Estcourt. Settlement shared among class members "It's fair to say that Ashley has been notorious for many decades. It has been the subject of numerous government inquiries dating back to the 1920s," lawyer for the former detainees, Lachlan Armstrong KC, told the court on Monday, November 25. "This class action concerned allegations of quite terrible abuse that was visited upon children -- mostly boys, but also some girls." An in-principle settlement agreement was reached in June, and was awaiting approval by the court. During the approval hearing, in the Supreme Court in Hobart, Mr Armstrong said notices had been sent to each of the 129 class members following the in-principle agreement. Mr Armstrong said the sum, which would be paid by the state government, would be shared among the class members. He said the court would supervise that process, which he estimated could take until the second half of next year. Ms Sdrinis said the members of the class action would receive payments ranging from $200,000 to $1 million. She said financial counselling was crucial. "We've seen in previous individual settlements that clients can just blow the money," she said. "They've never had money, they don't know how to deal with the money and many of them have debts and substance abuse issues. "We're trying really hard to support then in ways to manage their money well." The court heard the class members will have access to a specialist financial advisor to get investment advice and help setting up bank accounts. "These are life-changing amounts of money," Mr Armstrong said. "We can't make them follow the advice but we hope they do." He said the settlement was "an attempt to do what money can do to repair the damage that was suffered". "Money can only go so far and, frankly, not very far at all." Mr Armstrong also said trauma counselling would be offered to manage "old and harmful memories" the settlement may bring up. Mr Armstrong acknowledged the state's lawyers for "the very constructive way they engaged with the plaintiffs". Centre a focus of sexual abuse inquiry The Ashley Youth Detention Centre, near Deloraine in Tasmania's north, was a focus of the 2023 commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse at government-run institutions. During the commission's hearings, it was described as a "gladiator pit", a "war zone", and a "kindergarten for the adult prison". The commission of inquiry's final report, released in September last year, said child sexual abuse at Ashley remained "a live and current risk". It recommended closing the centre as soon as possible. The government previously promised to close the centre by the end of this year, but the new centre is now not expected to be finished until 2027. Ms Sdrinis called on the government to close the detention centre. "Ashley is still operating which I think beggars belief . . . we don't understand the delay. "The thing that is most disturbing to us today is that we've seen, since the closure of Ashley was announced and yet to be implemented, we've had clients coming forward who have been in Ashley in the last three or four years who also allege abuse." Government 'deeply committed' to better protecting children, AG says In a statement, Attorney-General Guy Barnett said government "notes the resolution" of the class action. He said the Tasmanian government "remains deeply committed to better protecting our children and young people, as well as ensuring more victim-survivors can access justice". Mr Barnett said the government was "pro-active in progressing the settlement and co-operated with counsel for the plaintiffs so that this complex matter could be resolved during mediation in a respectful and trauma-informed way". "We have heard the stories, and we acknowledge the lasting and negative impact that abuse has on the lives of children, young people and their families. "We thank those involved for coming forward, and for their bravery in reaching this important independent and legal milestone." [GN] BANDLAB US: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Knowles Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BANDLAB US INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09145 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.tomfordbeauty.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled Individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the suit. 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. The Defendant operates the ReverbNation online retail store, as well as the ReverbNation interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal BEAUTY HEALTH: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Jan. 15, 2025 -------------------------------------------------------------- Beauty Health Co. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that the Alghazwi securities class suit second amended complaint dismissal hearing is set on January 15, 2025. On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.), asserts claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (Second Claim). The complaint alleges that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint includes a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations. On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown, Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf, and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 17 U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns' and Dijkgraafs' motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the court granted the Dijkgraafs' motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs' counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On May 9, 2024, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to the court setting forth a proposed schedule for the filing of an amended complaint and defendants' response thereto. The proposed schedule has not yet been approved by the court. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint. The Securities Class Action case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. On September 30, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs' opposition brief is due on November 22, 2024, the Company's reply brief is due December 23, 2024, and the hearing on the motion is set for January 15, 2025. The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them. Headquartered in Long Beach, CA, Beauty Health is a health and beauty company. Its flagship brand is Hydrafacial through which the company provides goods and services related to hydradermabrasion, a dermatological procedure involving a mechanical exfoliation and infusion of facial serums.[BN] BNP PARIBAS: Court Appoints Notice Administrator in Kashef Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the plaintiffs' motion for appointment of notice administrator in the case captioned as ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BNP PARIBAS S.A., and BNP PARIBAS US WHOLESALE HOLDINGS, CORP. (f/k/a BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA, INC.), Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03228-AKH (S.D.N.Y. Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions, Inc. is appointed as notice administrator, accountable to the Court, to provide the requisite notice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2) in the case. As notice administrator, Epiq shall take all steps reasonably necessary to safeguard the identity, privacy and confidentiality of the potential class members notified and the information and data gained concerning said potential class members. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PZ3ZwB BNP PARIBAS: Court Appoints Special Master in Kashef, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Alvin Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed Daniel J. Capra as special master to assist in the administration of the case captioned ENTESAR OSMAN KASHEF, et al, Plaintiffs, -against- BNP PARIBAS S.A., and BNP PARIBAS US WHOLESALE HOLDINGS, CORP., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03228-AKH-JW (S.D.N.Y.) According to the Court, the Special Master is needed. Judge Hellerstein explains that while this is a certified class action, each class member will have to assert their individual claims seeking compensation for injury. The special needs of this case are too much to be managed and addressed effectively and timely by me, or by a magistrate judge, without the help of a Special Master. The cost and expenses of the Special Master's services shall be divided equally between the plaintiffs and the defendants, with plaintiffs bearing half the cost and defendants bearing half the cost. The Special Master will bill the parties at a rate of $500 per hour and for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the assigned duties. Judge Hellerstein says, "I find that the appointment of the Special Master will materially advance the litigation and reduce costs. Therefore, the imposition of the associated costs on the parties is fair. In addition, the Court will protect against unreasonable expense or delay by regular communication with the Special Master." A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXpjeJ BOEING STORES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. BOEING STORES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08256 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, http//:www.Boeingstore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Boeing provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant' 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Boeing 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. Boeingstore.com provides to the public a wide array of the information, services, and other programs offered by Boeing. Yet, Boeingstore.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Lemon Creek Fuel Spill ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Metcalfe, writing for Kelowna Capital News, reports that a settlement agreement has been reached in a class action lawsuit arising from the 2013 Lemon Creek fuel spill in the Slocan Valley. The document states that the four defendants will collectively pay $4.5 million to residents affected by the spill, after legal and other fees are deducted. A settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing. The agreement, which has been signed by all four defendants and the plaintiff, must still be approved by a judge in B.C. Supreme Court on Jan.15, but David Rosenberg, the lawyer for the plaintiffs Robert Kirk and James Ross, says he is confident it will go through. The defendants in the case are Executive Flight Centre Fuel Services Ltd., Transwest Helicopters Ltd., the Province of British Columbia, and Danny LaSante. A class action is a lawsuit started by one person on behalf of members of a group that have a similar claim against a single person or company. Before a court will take on a class action, a judge must certify that it meets the multiple rules set out in the Class Proceedings Act, as a judge did in this case. Two separate class actions were initiated by Lemon Creek residents Kirk and Ross and then combined. Both are claiming damages on behalf of many -- Kirk for environmental damage and Ross for personal injury. According to Rosenberg, the class consists of 2,776 property owners within the zone that was evacuated after the fuel spill, plus anyone who carried on a business within that zone. These people, known as class members, are not individually named in the court action -- this is always the case in class actions -- and most of them did not actually put their names forward and may not know they are part of the group. Anyone who lived in the evacuation zone at the time could benefit if they make a claim now. As in all class actions, no member will be responsible for legal fees or costs. In the summer of 2013, Executive Flight Centre Fuel Services Ltd. was providing fuel to the provincial government to fight a forest fire in the area of Lemon Creek in the Slocan Valley. Its tanker truck, driven by Danny LaSante, overturned and spilled 35,000 litres of jet fuel into the creek, polluting the stream and causing a local evacuation of people living up to 40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley. The spill killed fish and forced residents to get alternate sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days. Rosenberg said this is the first class action for environmental damage in Canada that has resulted in payment of a damage claim. All four of the defendants have declined to comment on the agreement. Filing a claim After the court gives final approval in January, residents may advance a claim or may apply to be excluded from the class action. Details will be announced at the time on Rosenberg's website. Anyone wishing to make a claim may do so, and the amount each class member gets will be decided by an administrator who will apply a point system to the claims. A class member can get compensation simply by being a class member. If a person was physically evacuated and can provide evidence of that, they will receive more. If a class member suffered personal injuries, such as burning eyes, nose, and rashes, they will get a larger amount, and a more severe personal injury will entitle more yet. Documented out-of-pocket expenses such as hotels, gas, evacuation and health-care costs will be reimbursed. If a class member can establish that they sold their property in the evacuation zone within five years following the spill and the property was devalued because of the spill, they may get compensation for that. A maze of court actions This case has taken a slow and circuitous route through the courts. "I've been doing (class actions) a long time," said Rosenberg. "I've never seen a case that's been certified, gone to the Court of Appeal, been sent back, certified again, and appealed again." The federal Crown also laid charges against three of the defendants for destruction of fish habitat under the Fisheries Act. LaSante and Executive Flight Services were found guilty and received fines, and the Province of B.C. was found not guilty. [GN] BROOKLYN 86TH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Layne Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BROOKLYN 86TH FITNESS CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-08251 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, ww.dolphinfitnessclubs.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 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 its goods and services. 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 services, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous services offered for sale.[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 BUILDING BLUE: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Alfaro Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Erick Rody Delcid Alfaro, Ivan Sanchez, Oscar Castro, Kevin Fuentes, Luis Fuentes, Alex Salgado, Rodolfo Moreno, and Selvin Hernandez v. Building Blue Walls LLC, South River Floors Inc., Javier Carvajal and Joseph Paul Marcellino, Case No. 8:24-cv-03409-DLB (D. Md., Nov. 26, 2024) is a Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of himself, and all similarly situated employees, including all current and former non-exempt employees of the Defendants, who were not paid at the prevailing wage rate for the period of time of their employment in July of 2022. This action is brought as a collective action under the FLSA and as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff and all those similarly situated. The collective action is brought for failure to pay overtime wages, and the class action is brought for failure to pay the prevailing wage and provide wage statements as required by Maryland Law. The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants failure to pay the required prevailing wage rate and seeks to recover unpaid wages, treble liquidated damages, interest, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Building Blue Walls, LLC, is a Maryland corporation engaged in the business of providing construction services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anu KMT, Esq. KEMET HUNT LAW GROUP, INC. 7845 Belle Point Dr Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (301) 982-0888 E-mail: akemet@kemethuntlaw.com CAPSTONE LOGISTICS: Arbitration Bid in Vargas Suit Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Senior Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part Capstone Logistics, LLC's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as Antonia Vargas and Maria Barrera, Plaintiffs, v. Capstone Logistics, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00712-KJM-JDP (E.D. Calif.). Vargas and Barrerra claim Capstone violated California labor law. They allege Capstone did not allow them to take breaks, did not pay overtime wages, did not reimburse them for business expenses, did not take mandatory precautions against COVID-19, gave them inaccurate wage statements and delayed their final paychecks. Vargas and Barrera originally filed this action in California Superior Court. They proposed to litigate both on behalf of a proposed class and as representatives under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Capstone removed the case to this court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. After Capstone removed the case, it moved to compel arbitration of Barrera and Vargas's individual claims, to dismiss claims they were seeking to assert on behalf of a proposed class and to stay their non-individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act. The company's records show Barrera signed into its online system and acknowledged and accepted the arbitration policy. The company does not have similar records for Vargas. Although the company's records show Vargas created a username and password and began filling out some forms, those records do not include a confirmation showing she ever heard about or saw the handbook or arbitration policy. The company relies on a declaration by Vargas's manager to fill this apparent gap. Capstone has shown Barrera agreed to arbitrate, but the parties have cited contradictory evidence about whether Vargas also agreed to arbitrate, so the Court grants the motion in part and otherwise holds it in abeyance. The motion to compel arbitration is granted in part as to the claims by Maria Barrera, the Court holds. She must pursue her claims individually in arbitration, including her claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act. The motion to compel arbitration otherwise remains pending and is held in abeyance until the factual dispute has been resolved. Capstone's request to stay the plaintiffs' non-individual claims under the Private Attorneys General Act is likewise held in abeyance. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWArWo CASSAVA SCIENCES: Seeks to Exclude Expert Testimony ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Cassava Sciences, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-00751-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order excluding the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Steven Feinstein under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The opinions of Plaintiffs' class certification expert, Dr. Steven Feinstein, have no basis in financial economics, assume the very conclusions Dr. Feinstein purports to prove, fail to engage with relevant facts, and are unreliable in myriad other ways. Dr. Feinstein's opinions stem from a baseless concept of market efficiency that would essentially result in every market being rubber-stamped "efficient" and every securities class action being certified. Rather than test whether the market’s movements are consistent with efficiency, Dr. Feinstein assumes that any price movement demonstrates efficiency, ignores any evidence inconsistent with that assumption, and concocts post hoc explanations for wild price swings disconnected from news. Such a strained, one-sided approach to market efficiency has zero basis in financial economics. Consistent with this flawed approach, Dr. Feinstein fails to engage with the realities of this case. He ignores the meme-stock dynamics that plagued Cassava’s stock during the class period, asserting that Cassava was just like any other stock traded on the Nasdaq. Dr. Feinstein’s refusal to account for the forces affecting Cassava’s stock price during the class period further renders his opinions on market efficiency unreliable and unhelpful to the trier of fact. In sum, Dr. Feinstein has provided no information whatsoever that could allow the Court to determine whether classwide damages reliably can be calculated here. Dr. Feinstein's "vague and generic references to the standard tools of financial economics and calculating inflation by 'working chronologically backwards from the final corrective disclosure' do not represent a methodology that a financial economist could implement to reliably measure damages in a manner consistent with Plaintiffs' theory of liability." Accordingly, Dr. Feinstein's purported damages opinion is unreliable and should be excluded, the Defendants contend. Cassava Sciences is a clinical stage biotechnology company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ueGxqG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Gregg Costa, Esq. Trey Cox, Esq. Monica K. Loseman, Esq. Scott Campbell, Esq. John Turquet Bravard, Esq. Mary Beth Maloney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 3000 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (346) 718-6600 E-mail: gcosta@gibsondunn.com tcox@gibsondunn.com mloseman@gibsondunn.com scampbell@gibsondunn.com jturquetbravard@gibsondunn.com mmaloney@gibsondunn.com - and - Eric J. Schoen, Esq. Douglas W. Greene, Esq. C. Shawn Cleveland, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 847-7090 E-mail: dgreene@bakerlaw.com scleveland@bakerlaw.com CO LO OF MO: Carpenter Class Suit Seeks OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- KOURTNEY CARPENTER and REBECCA ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all persons Similarly situated as class representative under Missouri Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act v. CO LO OF MO, LLC D/B/A COURTESY LOANS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00092-NCC (E.D. Mo., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant has a policy that fails to fully pay, Plaintiff, class and collective, overtime wages based on the wage violations: a. Shorting overtime by failing to correct incorrect time entries (ie: missed/late/early time clock punches); b. Failing to include non-discretionary bonuses in Plaintiffs' (and class/collective) in Plaintiffs’ overtime rate of pay. c. Shorting overtime by deducting for lunches no lunch break is taken; d. Failing to pay for all time worked, especially before and after work hours during which Plaintiffs collective and class are required to visit customers houses, and secure additional loans or other work tasks and/or going to make bank deposits without payment for work time for this work task. e. Failing to repay business expenses especially mileage for work performed using Plaintiffs (and class/collective) personal vehicle without repayment. f. Failing to pay overtime rate of pay on overtime work hours. The action is brought as a class action pursuant to the Missouri Minimum Wage and as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Courtesy Loans is a corporation or business which does business in Missouri and that Defendant provide services and products to customers from other states thus engages in the stream of commerce.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Baldwin, Esq. Eric Vernon, Esq. Sylvia Hernandez, Esq. Holly Vanostran, Esq. BALDWIN & VERNON 108 S. Pleasant St. Independence, MO 64050 Telephone: (816) 842-1102 Facsimile: (816) 842-1104 E-mail: Kevin@bvalaw.net Eric@bvalaw.net Sylvia@bvalaw.net Holly@bvalaw.net COSTCO WHOLESALE: Costan Sues Over Fish Oils' False Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a fish oil supplement consumer is suing Costco. Why: The plaintiff says the company failed to disclose the potential risks of its fish oil supplement. Where: The Costco class action was filed in a New York federal court. Costco markets its Kirkland Signature Fish Oil supplements as supporting heart health while failing to disclose their potential risks, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Donna Costan filed the class action complaint against Costco Wholesale Corporation on Nov. 18 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the retail giant misled consumers by marketing its Kirkland Signature Fish Oil supplements as supporting heart health while failing to disclose potential risks. Costan claims that Costco falsely advertised its fish oil products with statements like "Helps Support a Healthy Heart." However, studies cited in the complaint indicate that omega-3 supplements do not reduce the risk of heart disease or related cardiovascular events and may even increase the risk of atrial fibrillation, a type of irregular heartbeat, Costan alleges. Costco has insufficient evidence to claim product supports a healthy heart, lawsuit alleges. Heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, with consumers increasingly turning to supplements like fish oil for preventative care, Costan says. Costco exploited this vulnerability by making unsubstantiated claims about its fish oil's benefit, she alleges. Citing research from sources such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and JAMA Cardiology, the lawsuit argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the heart health benefits of over-the-counter omega-3 supplements. A 2018 analysis of major omega-3 studies found no significant impact on reducing the risk of heart attacks or other cardiovascular issues, the Costco class action states. Costan says she bought Costco's fish oil supplements believing they would support her heart health, based on the product's labeling. She claims she would not have bought the supplements, or would have paid significantly less, had she known they offered no proven benefits and could potentially even harm her health. As a result, she's looking to represent anyone in the United States who bought the Costco fish oil supplements. She's suing for breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violations of state consumer laws and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last month, Continental Dairy Facilities Southwest LLC recalled more than 79,000 pounds of Costco butter as it fails to contain a disclaimer about milk allergens. What do you think of the allegations in this Costco class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Ruhandy Glezakos, Benjamin Heikali, Joshua Nassir and Katherine Phillips of Treehouse Law LLP. The Costco class action is Donna Costan v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-02156-JO-AHG in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] DDR MEDIA: Jornaya's Summary Judgment Bid in Williams Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Defendant Jornaya's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit styled LORETTA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff v. DDR MEDIA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-03789-SI (N.D. Cal.). On Sept. 20, 2024, the Court held a hearing on Defendant Jornaya's motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment. The Court also grants the unopposed motion to file under seal at Dkt. No. 99. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff Loretta Williams filed this putative class action lawsuit against Defendants DDR Media LLC and Lead Intelligence Inc. d/b/a Jornaya ("Jornaya"). Williams claims that the Defendants violated her privacy when she visited DDR Media's website, snappyrent2own.com, because her keystrokes were recorded by a computer code embedded on the website through a Jornaya software product called "TCPA Guardian." Williams alleges that the Defendants recorded her personal information and that the recording constitutes wiretapping in violation of California law. According to Jornaya's Chief Technology Officer Manny Wald, TCPA Guardian is designed to help companies comply with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA, which restricts how companies contact consumers using autodialing technology without prior consent. On Dec. 10, 2021, Williams visited DDR Media's website. She claims that during her visit, TCPA Guardian captured her strokes, clicks and other interactions on the website, including her name, email address, and phone number. She alleges that TCPA Guardian is an "eavesdropping software," and that by using that software, the Defendants intentionally tapped the lines of communication between her and DDR Media's website. The second amended complaint ("SAC") alleges a single cause of action under California Penal Code Section 631(a), the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). Ms. Williams claims that Jornaya has violated the second prong of the statute because by using TCPA Guardian, Jornaya willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, read or attempted to read or learn the contents or meaning of electronic communications of the Plaintiff and alleged Class Members, while the electronic communications were in transit or passing over any wire, line or cable or were being sent from or received at any place within California. She alleges that DDR Media is liable under the fourth prong of CIPA because it "partnered" with Jornaya to conduct the illegal wiretapping. During several rounds of motions to dismiss the complaint, Jornaya argued, inter alia, that it did not "read, or attempt to read, or to learn" the contents of any communications because when data is transmitted from websites to Jornaya's servers through TCPA Guardian, that data is automatically "hashed" and no personally identifiable data or communications are stored on Jornaya's servers. The Court directed the parties to engage in targeted discovery regarding how TCPA Guardian functions and whether Jornaya "reads, or attempts to read, or to learn" the contents or meaning of electronic communications. The parties engaged in that discovery, and Jornaya has now filed a motion for summary judgment on that issue. At his deposition, Wald testified that Jornaya automatically performs the hashing of user-inputted data as soon as the data transmitted from the website reaches Jornaya's servers, and "once the hashing algorithm is applied," the "original data is discarded" and "is not used" for "any purpose." The entire process "occurs within milliseconds." Wald explained that the data is received by the server and it is only stored in volatile memory, a RAM, for milliseconds before it is quickly overwritten by other processes, other data, and never stored on any persistent medium. Ms. Williams does not dispute Jornaya's evidence regarding how the hashing process works. Instead, she contends that Jornaya reads, attempts to read, or learns the contents of communications because when Jornaya hashes data, Jornaya first "processes and evaluates" that data by performing select formatting adjustments to the data. She cites Wald's deposition testimony in which he describes how the input is "processed" and "evaluated." She argues that a jury could reasonably conclude that this initial step of processing and evaluating the input data constitutes "reading" or "attempting to read" or "learning" the contents of the data. She also emphasizes that the California Supreme Court has consistently held that CIPA is to be interpreted broadly. The parties have agreed that portions of Wald's deposition testimony in which he explains the technical details of how TCPA Guardian works should be sealed. The Court discusses this testimony in the sealed addendum to this Order. Jornaya argues that in order to "read" or "learn the contents" of a communication under CIPA, there must be some action to interpret or understand the communication's substantive meaning. Jornaya contends that the undisputed evidence shows that its automated hashing process does not and could not seek to interpret or understand any of the data, and instead that the algorithm makes certain formatting adjustments to the data and then irreversibly transforms it into an incomprehensible alphanumeric string called a hash, all within milliseconds. Jornaya argues that the entire process takes place without the need or capacity for Jornaya to decipher the substantive meaning of the data. The Court concludes that the phrase "reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication" in CIPA requires some effort at understanding the substantive meaning of the message, report or communication, and that the evidence shows that TCPA Guardian does not "read, attempt to read, or to learn the contents or meaning" of the information that is input on websites hosting that software. Judge Illston holds that the evidence shows that the data Jornaya receives is automatically subjected to an algorithm that transforms the data into an incomprehensible "hash" that has no inherent substantive meaning, and that Jornaya does not retain the original unhashed data in its servers. The Court is not persuaded by Williams' argument that the initial step of the hashing process, during which the original data is formatted in a particular way, constitutes "reading" under CIPA. The alteration of the data is an automatic, almost instantaneous step in the hashing process, and does not involve any attempt by Jornaya to understand the substantive meaning of the data. Ms. Williams contends that D'Angelo v. Penny OpCo, LLC, No. 23-CV-0981-BAS-DDL, 2023 WL 7006793 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023), supports her position that Jornaya's software "read" the information that she input on the www.snappyrent2own.com website. Judge Illston finds Williams' reliance on D'Angelo v. Penny OpCo is unavailing. Based upon this record, the Court concludes that TCPA Guardian did not "read, attempt to read, or learn" the contents or message of any communication that Williams input on DDR Media's website. As such, the Court does not reach Jornaya's other arguments in favor of summary judgment. For these reasons, the Court grants Jornaya's motion for summary judgment. Because Williams claimed that DDR Media was liable because it partnered with Jornaya in violating CIPA, the Court also grants summary judgment in favor of DDR Media. A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/5cr3tff4 from PacerMonitor.com. DELTA GALIL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Picon Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Delta Galil USA, Inc, Case No. 1:24-cv-09058 (S.D.N.Y., nOV. 26, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.splendid.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Red Land Cotton's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Delta Galil provides to the public a website known as Splendid.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a selection of sweaters, tops, sleepwear, outerwear, dresses, skirts, shoes, denim, accessories. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit (the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Dentsply Sirona Inc. ("Dentsply" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XRAY) and certain of its executive officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Dentsply common stock between December 1, 2022 and November 6, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by Saxena White is captioned North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Dentsply Sirona Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-9083 (S.D.N.Y.). Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Dentsply manufactures professional dental products, including CAD/CAM computer-aided design and manufacturing systems, imaging equipment, motorized dental handpieces, consumables (such as files, sealers, and needles), implants, prosthetics, and orthodontics, such as clear aligners. Dental and medical devices sold by Dentsply in the United States, including clear aligners, are generally classified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") into a category that makes them subject to the same regulations that apply to all medical devices. Dentsply's four segments are: Connected Technology Solutions, Essential Dental Solutions, Wellspect Healthcare, and Orthodontic and Implant Solutions, which includes Byte, a direct-to-consumer ("DTC") aligner solution. In 2023, Orthodontic and Implant Solutions, including Byte, accounted for more than 26% of Dentsply's net sales by segment. Prior to the start of the Class Period, on December 31, 2020, Dentsply paid $1.04 billion in cash to acquire Byte, a manufacturer of affordable, "doctor-directed," DTC clear dental aligners. According to Dentsply, Byte held a "leadership position in the rapidly growing direct-to-consumer, doctor-directed clear aligner market." In the January 4, 2021 press release announcing the acquisition, Dentsply explained that, priced "[a]t under $85 per month, Byte has found a way to make the inaccessible, accessible -- providing an easy, convenient and affordable way to upgrade your smile through the Byte Teledentistry platform." The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including that: (1) Dentsply targeted low-income people who did not have access to good oral hygiene education, a dentist, or dental insurance, which often meant patients signing up for Byte had underlying dental issues that would have made them ineligible for treatment; (2) the push for Byte growth and sales commissions caused sales employees to sell to contraindicated patients; (3) as a result of the above, the Byte patient onboarding workflow did not provide adequate assurance that contraindicated patients did not enter treatment; (4) before and during the Class Period, reports of Byte patient injuries were pouring in; (5) Dentsply knew that its Byte aligners were causing severe patient injuries for years but did little to investigate those injuries or notify the FDA; (6) Dentsply had no systems in place to notify the FDA of these injuries, which the Company is required to do within 30 days of learning of a problem; (7) the FDA had received a sharp uptick in reports of serious injuries from Byte patients; (8) as a result of the above, Dentsply materially overstated the goodwill value of Byte; (9) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth began to be revealed after markets closed on October 24, 2024, when Dentsply announced the "voluntary suspension of sales and marketing of its Byte Aligners and Impression Kits while the Company conducts a review of certain regulatory requirements related to these products." Dentsply claimed that the Byte sales and marketing suspension was a "precautionary measure." Dentsply further disclosed that it "expects to record non-cash charges for the impairment of goodwill within the range of $450-$550 million" for its Orthodontic and Implant Solutions segment. During a "Byte business update call" before markets opened on October 25, 2024, Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Simon D. Campion gave more context about the Byte suspension: "[I]n connection with our ongoing discussions with FDA, we have determined that our patient onboarding workflow may not provide adequate assurance that certain contraindicated patients do not enter treatment with Byte Aligners." On this news, the price of Dentsply stock fell over 4%, from a closing price of $24.41 per share on October 24, 2024, to a closing price of $23.31 per share on October 25, 2024. The truth was revealed on November 7, 2024 when, before the markets opened, Dentsply reported its financial results for the third quarter of 2024, disclosing that Dentsply had "recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill of ($495) million net of tax within the Orthodontic and Implant Solutions segment." During the corresponding earnings call held later that day, CEO Campion further disclosed that although Dentsply was "not at a point in our analysis to make a definitive decision concerning Byte," the Company was "thoroughly evaluating strategic options, which may include a discontinuation of some or all of this business." On this news, the price of Dentsply stock fell over 28%, from a closing price of $23.98 per share on November 6, 2024, to a closing price of $17.26 per share on November 7, 2024, on extraordinary trading volume. If you purchased Dentsply common stock during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than January 27, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), a Senior Attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com/. Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California, and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors. CONTACT INFORMATION Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. mduenas@saxenawhite.com Saxena White P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, New York 10606 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 www.saxenawhite.com [GN] DIRECT GUARD: Durant Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- EDWYN DURANT and other similarly situated individuals v. DIRECT GUARD FLORIDA, LLC and RONNIE PADRON, and individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-24645 (S.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2024) is a class action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as security guard from October 2019 until his wrongful termination on August 2023. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants and made $20 as a security guard. He typically worked approximately 80 hours per week. When he reached 40, employer sometimes paid a few hours more at $30 per hour, but paid nothing for the remaining hours, says the suit. In addition, the Plaintiff is owed two paychecks of approximately $3,500.00 each. Direct Guard Services provides expert security guard services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 DOMINO'S PIZZA: Employees Sue Over Underpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------- Paulinet Tamaray of Business & Human Rights Resource Centre reports that "Domino's faces trial over alleged underpayment of workers", 4 Nov 2022 Domino's Pizza is set to face trial after a national wages scandal that allegedly left tens of thousands of its workers paid less than the minimum award wage. According to The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), the class action, brought by the law firm Phi Finney McDonald, claimed that Domino's drivers and in-store workers were underpaid up to $11 an hour, or amounting to $10,000 a year. Among the claims in the case is that Domino's wrongly ordered its franchisees to pay workers based on the workplace agreements that the company reached with the Shop Assistants Union (SDA) instead of the fast-food award . . . This means that workers are paid significantly less than the minimum award wage. In 2016, the investment bank Deutsche estimated that the pizza giant was earning over $30mil per year in wages by paying its staff under the workplace agreements rather than the fast-food award. Abhinav Rana, who was a temporary migrant worker from India, worked as a driver and in-store at three Domino's stores in Melbourne from 2016 to 2018. According to SMH, Rana was paid a flat $16 per hour as a casual employee working 25 to 30 hours per week, and if he was paid award wages, he would have received an average of $25 per hour, and more during the weekends and at night. However, when Rana started his work as a delivery driver, Domino's paid him $12.40 an hour with a small delivery fee -- significantly less than the minimum award wage. Rana has estimated that he was underpaid by up to $20,000 at Domino's. "It was pretty hard for me living day to day . . . Melbourne is expensive . . . Being new to this country, you don't know much about it [the employment system]". . . Affected workers are encouraged to come forward. . . Secretary of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Unions (RAFFWU) Josh Cullinan said that workers may fail to receive their total compensation if they don't make contact regarding their claims or register. "We know there are more than 55,000 Domino's workers who are eligible for this class action," Cullinan said in a news release. . . A Domino's spokesperson told SMH that the company "strongly disputes" the claims in the class action. "We maintain that the entitlements of all workers in every Domino's store in Australia were governed by our enterprise agreements in place at the time," the spokesperson said. "The enterprise agreements were terminated in January 2018 and every Domino's store in Australia moved to the award conditions at that time." SMH reported that the class action, set to be heard in a Federal Court trial on 2 November, does not affect stores run by the franchise's head office. [GN] ENG SALES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Aventisub, et al. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Georgette Castner of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the the defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned as AVENTISUB LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENG SALES LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-04748 (GC) (JTQ) (D.N.J.) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs are limited liability companies operating out of Bridgewater, New Jersey. "Sanofi is recognized throughout New Jersey, the United States, and the world as a leading manufacturer of over-the-counter consumer health products," such as the allergy medication known as "Allegra." Plaintiffs "advertise[], distribute[], and sell[] [their] Allegra Products to consumers" under several registration marks (the Allegra Marks) issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Plaintiffs have "established substantial goodwill and widespread recognition in the Allegra Marks, and the marks have become famous and associated exclusively with Sanofi and its products by both customers and potential customers, as well as the general public at large." Widespread recognition has been established through extensive promotion and advertisements, as well as Plaintiff's commitment to rigorous testing and quality control measures implemented to protect consumers. Defendant Eng Sales LLC is unaffiliated with Plaintiffs and sells products, including products bearing the Allegra Marks, "on several online retail platforms, including, but not limited to, Amazon.com, using the seller name 'Stam Sales.'" Plaintiffs have "never authorized or otherwise granted Defendant permission to sell Allegra Products." According to Plaintiffs, "Defendant represents that the Allegra Products Defendant offers for sale on Amazon.com are 'new' despite the fact that they are expired, used, closed-out, liquidated, and/or non-genuine product of unknown origin." Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant falsely assures customers that they are purchasing safe Allegra products, and that Defendant knowingly removes and/or hides expiration dates. Plaintiffs bring a single Count for injunctive relief and money damages against Defendant for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1125. Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack standing and failure to state a claim. Defendant first argues that Plaintiffs lack standing because the Complaint fails to explain the inter-relation between any of the three Plaintiffs, or their connection, if any, to the trademarks listed in the Complaint." Defendant further alleges that without any factual allegations concerning injury, causation, and redress, Plaintiffs have not established standing to bring this suit. The Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts to establish Article III standing. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that: (1) they manufacture and sell Allegra products, use the Allegra marks on these products, and have legal rights to the Allegra Marks; (2) Defendant is an entity unaffiliated with Plaintiffs; (3) Defendant has never received permission to sell Allegra products; (4) Defendant is advertising and offering for sale "new" Allegra products bearing Allegra Marks; (5) the products Defendant sells "are expired, used, closed-out, liquidated, and/or non-genuine product of unknown origin"; (6) customers have reported complaints because of the faulty products; and (7) "Defendant's conduct results in consumer confusion, the dilution of [Plaintiffs'] goodwill and trade name, as well as lost sales and profits." Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the Defendant's actions and that will likely be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish statutory standing to bring claims under the Lanham Act. The Court also finds Plaintiffs have statutory standing to pursue their claims brought under Sec. 1125(a) of the Lanham Act. First, Plaintiffs satisfy the zone-of-interest test because they have asserted facts regarding an injury to their reputation and sales based on the various consumer complaints outlined in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Second, Plaintiffs meet the proximate causation requirement because they have sufficiently alleged that Defendant's conduct of selling defective products, which display Allegra Marks, "results in consumer confusion, the dilution of Plaintiffs' goodwill and trade name, and lost sales and profits." Plaintiffs have also sufficiently asserted that Defendant's conduct misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and qualities of their goods and services. Because these allegations fall squarely within the Lanham Act, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that their injuries were proximately caused by Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiffs have statutory standing to sue under the Lanham Act, the Court concludes. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged claims for trademark infringement, false advertising, and unfair competition. As a threshold matter, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed because the three causes of action cannot be "lumped together" into a single count. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant is selling "expired, used, closed-out, liquidated, and/or non-genuine product of unknown origin." Because the Court must accept Plaintiffs' allegations as true on a motion to dismiss, Defendant's "first sale" argument presents factual questions that are premature to resolve at this stage. Moreover, this affirmative defense should not be raised in this pre-answer Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, Defendant's Motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, the Court holds. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs fail to meet any of the requisite elements for false advertisement. The Court disagrees. According to the Court, Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled facts demonstrating that Defendant made false or misleading statements about the Allegra products and that consumers have been and are likely to be deceived by those statements. Plaintiffs assert that they have "never authorized or otherwise granted Defendant permission to sell Allegra Products." Further, Defendant falsely assures customers that they are purchasing safe Allegra products, and that Defendant knowingly removes and/or hides expiration dates. Plaintiffs also outline customer complaints regarding packaging and expiration date issues. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that "Defendant's conduct results in consumer confusion, the dilution of Plaintiffs' goodwill and trade name, as well as lost sales and profits." These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage. Therefore, Defendant's Motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' false advertising claim, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dM4knH ETHICAL CULTURE: Court Refuses to Seal Documents in Wright Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendants' request to seal documents supporting their motion to enforce the settlement agreement in the lawsuit titled SERENE R. WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs v. ETHICAL CULTURE FIELDSTON SCHOOL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-01874-JPO (S.D.N.Y.). The Defendants have asked to redact, among other things, references to the mere fact that the settlement discussions concerned a putative "class action" lawsuit. Allowing these redactions would be problematic given the Plaintiffs' argument that the settlement the Defendants seek to enforce was an improperly negotiated "aggregate settlement," which the named Plaintiffs here did not approve, Judge Oetken notes. On the flip side, redacting the mere fact that the settlement concerned "class action" claims is not necessary to preserve the confidentiality of the terms of the settlement agreements or protect the privacy interests of third parties. Contrary to the Defendants' characterization, Judge Oetken opines that the proposed redactions here are not the same type of information that the Court agreed should be sealed in Emile v. Ethical Culture Fieldston School, No. 21-cv-3799 (S.D.N.Y.). In Emile, the redactions did not include references to a "class action" settlement, and were less extensive than the ones proposed here. Because the redacted information may be relevant to the Plaintiffs' arguments and because such extensive redactions are unnecessary to protect fairness or third-party privacy interests, Judge Oetken holds that the Defendants' request is denied. Should the Defendants elect to propose revised redactions, they had until Nov. 27, 2024, to do so. As a reminder, Judge Oetken says any information that concerns the Plaintiffs here will not be redacted. Similarly, any information that concerns whether the settlement was negotiated as a series of individual settlements or an aggregate settlement will not be redacted. Information that pertains to the terms of third-party settlements, the identities of third-parties, or the amounts of third-party settlements, or is protected by attorney-client privilege, may be redacted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3wttdtk from PacerMonitor.com. EXXON MOBIL: Ford County Sues Over Recyclability of Plastics ------------------------------------------------------------ FORD COUNTY, KANSAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, CHEVRON USA INC., CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CORPORATION, DUPONT de NEMOURS INC., CELANESE CORPORATION, DOW INC., DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, DUPONT CORPORATION, EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES, and AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, Case No. 2:24-cv-02547 (D. Kan, Nov. 27, 2024) is a class action complaint seeking relief to remedy the harms caused by the Defendants' negligent and/or intentional representations regarding the recyclability of plastics, which led to the production and purchase of more plastics than otherwise would have occurred. The case is about Defendants' profit-driven decision to promote the idea to the American consumer that plastics were recyclable and better for the environment, when in reality they had information that only a tiny fraction of plastics are ever recycled. The Defendants' false representations regarding the recyclability of plastics led to increased production of plastic products, increased demand for plastics products, increased prices for plastic products and corresponding issues with the remediation of plastic waste, all of which have harmed the citizens of Kansas, the Plaintiff contends. Through this Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks abatement to remove and properly dispose of Defendants' plastic products, and an injunction to enforce that Defendants will no longer advertise their plastic products as recyclable. Exxon is a plastic producing company. It is headquartered in Spring, Texas. Chevron is another oil and gas company created by the breakup of Standard Oil Company. It is headquartered in San Ramon, California. Eastman Chemical is a global specialty chemicals company that produces a wide range of fibers, chemicals and advanced materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. W. Greg Wright, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. Brandon C. Landt, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com gwright@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com blandt@midwest-law.com - and - Dave Rebein, Esq. REBEIN BROTHERS, PA 1715 Central Ave. Dodge City, KS 67801 Telephone: (620) 227-08126 - and - Glenn I. Kerbs, Esq. Samantha F. Sweley, Esq. KERBS LAW OFFICE, LLC 1715 Central Ave. Dodge City, KS 67801 Telephone: (620) 255-0238 E-mail: gkerbs@kerbslaw.com ssweley@kerbslaw.com FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Franklin Resources, Inc. (NYSE: BEN) resulting from allegations that Franklin Resources may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Franklin Resources securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29671 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On August 21, 2024, Franklin Resources filed a current report with the SEC. In this current report, the company announced it was naming a sole Chief Investment Officer at Western Asset Management (a company subsidiary) to replace co-Chief Investment Officer Ken Leech, who had been on a leave of absence, effective immediately. The current report also stated Ken Leech had "received a Wells Notice from the Staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission," and "[i]n light of Mr. Leech's leave of absence, the Company has determined that closing its Macro Opportunities strategy [. . .] is in clients' best interests." On this news, Franklin Resources' stock fell 12.5% on August 21, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FULL SAIL: M.D. Florida Refuses to Stay Buxton TCPA Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie S. Sneed of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denies the Defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit styled LAUREN BUXTON, Plaintiff v. FULL SAIL, LLC and THE OFFICE GURUS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00747-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.). The Defendants move to stay this putative class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 pending the Supreme Court's decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23 1226, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 3060 (Oct. 4, 2024), which granted a petition for writ of certiorari to True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., Nos. 22-15710, 22-15732, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28346 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023). The Plaintiff opposes the motion. Judge Sneed opines that the Defendants' motion to stay does not demonstrate good cause or reasonableness because a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court does not in itself change the law and in similar contexts other district courts have denied motions to stay. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to stay. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2ku3n7pf from PacerMonitor.com. GEO SECURE: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Mazzei Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the the case captioned as CHRIS MAZZEI, Plaintiff, v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California will order counsel for Defendants to pay monetary sanctions and recommends that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case and to comply with the Court's orders and local rules. Plaintiff Chris Mazzei originally filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, on September 8, 2022. He asserts various causes of action on behalf of himself and a putative class of all current and former California employees of Defendants GEO Secure Services, LLC and The GEO Group, Inc. employed within four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The complaint alleges that GEO engaged in unfair competition and committed violations of the California Labor Code by failing to provide meal and rest periods, pay wages, comply with employee wage statement requirements, timely pay wages at termination, timely pay employees, reimburse business expenses, pay for all hours worked, and provide a place of employment that is safe and healthful. GEO removed the action to this Court on October 20, 2022, on the grounds that the case satisfied the federal jurisdictional thresholds under the Class Action Fairness Act. At the parties' request, the Court delayed scheduling the case to allow them time to discuss potential early resolution of their disputes. Thereafter, following its receipt of the parties' joint report indicating GEO was not amenable to settlement discussions, the Court entered a class certification discovery and motion scheduling order. In their notice that they had reached a settlement of Plaintiff's individual claims, the parties represented that "a formal settlement agreement is being circulated for review and signatures." The parties also reported their intention to file a stipulated dismissal once the specified terms in the agreement are performed. Pursuant to Local Rule 160, the Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within 21 days of the filing of their notice of settlement. Instead of filing dispositional documents, on November 6, 2024, the parties filed a "joint status report" in which they represented "the formal settlement agreement is still being circulated for review and signatures" and requested an additional 60 days within which to file dispositional documents. Because Local Rule 160 requires the filing of dispositional documents within 21 days of the filing of a notice of settlement absent "good cause," and because the Court found the parties had not demonstrated good cause to extend the deadline, the Court denied the parties' request for extension but continued the filing deadline from November 8 to November 14, 2024. On the extended deadline to file dispositional documents (November 14), the parties again filed a joint status report requesting a further 45-day extension of the filing deadline. In their report, the parties represent that Plaintiff transmitted a draft settlement agreement to GEO on October 11, 2024, but that counsel for GEO was still reviewing the agreement and did not expect to transmit to Plaintiff its proposed revisions to the agreement until the following week. The Court's warning to a party that failure to obey the court's order will result in dismissal satisfies the "considerations of the alternatives" requirement. In its order of November 7 finding the parties failed to demonstrate good cause for a 60-day extension of the deadline to file dispositional documents, the Court admonished the parties: Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions. Plaintiff was adequately forewarned that his failure to timely file dispositional documents could result in terminating sanctions. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court's Local Rules and the Court's orders, and in so doing is failing to prosecute the case, the Court will recommend dismissal of this action. Separately, the Court imposes monetary sanctions on counsel of record for Defendants in accordance with Local Rule 110 based on their failure to comply with the Court's orders requiring filing of dispositional documents. Counsel for Defendants shall pay the Clerk of the Court $500. This order is stayed until December 2, 2024, to allow the parties to file the necessary dispositional documents previously ordered. If the dispositional documents are filed within this 14-day period, the Court will vacate this order and close this case based on the reported settlement reached. If the parties fail to comply, the Court will issue an order requiring payment of the monetary sanctions imposed. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g1ZOYx GIBRALTAR HOSPITALITY: Settlement in Vasquez Suit Has Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cristina D. Silva of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada issued a Final Order approving the class action settlement and judgment in the lawsuit titled DOUGLAS VASQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GIBRALTAR HOSPITALITY SERVICES, LLC d/b/a and a/k/a 7TH AND CARSON, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00441-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.). The putative class action ("Action") came before the Court on Nov. 4, 2024, for a hearing and this Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement and Judgment ("Court's Final Order and Judgment"), consistent with the Court's Preliminary Approval Order ("Preliminary Approval Order"), filed and entered June 25, 2024, and as set forth in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release in the Action. The Court adopts the defined terms in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release on file (the "Settlement" or the "Agreement"). The Court confirms as final the following settlement class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23: all hourly-paid servers and bartenders employed by the Defendant in the State of Nevada, who received tips and who did not hold a Lead position at any time from Jan. 26, 2021, until April 23, 2023. The Court confirms the appointment of Douglas Vasquez as the Class Representative and the enhancement payment of $1,000 to Douglas Vasquez, as set forth in the Settlement. The Court confirms the appointment of Christian Gabroy, Esq., and Kaine Messer, Esq., of Gabroy Messer as class counsel for the settlement class and approves their requests for attorneys' fees of $3,500 and actual litigation costs of $1,500. The class notice was distributed to class members, pursuant to this Court's orders, and fully satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable law. Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court grants final approval to this Settlement and finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, including the attorneys' fees, costs, and enhancement award provisions. The Court specifically finds that the settlement confers a substantial benefit to settlement class members, considering the relative strength of the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendant's defenses and the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation. Judge Silva finds that distribution of the Notice directed to the Class Members as set forth in the Settlement and the other matters set forth therein have been completed in conformity with the Preliminary Approval Order, including individual notice to all Class Members, who could be identified through reasonable effort, and as otherwise set forth in the Settlement. The Court finds the Settlement was entered into in good faith. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied the standards and applicable requirements for final approval of this class action settlement. The Court finds that, as of the date of this Order, each and every class member has waived and released claims as set forth in the Settlement and Notice of Proposed Settlement and Hearing Date for Court Approval (the "Notice"). The Court finds that the Claims Administrator ILYM Group, Inc., is entitled to $5,000 for administrative fees. As of the date of the Court's Final Order and Judgment, each and every Class Member is and will be deemed to have conclusively released the Released Claims as against the Released Parties. Neither the Settlement nor any of the terms set forth in the Settlement is an admission by the Released Parties, nor is the Court's Final Order and Judgment Dismissing a finding of the validity of any claims in the Action or of any wrongdoing by the Released Parties. The Court enters judgment in the Action, as of the date of entry of the Court's Final Order and Judgment, pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement. Without affecting the finality of the Court's Final Order and Judgment in any way, the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of the Settlement, and all orders entered in connection therewith. The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yptfbut7 from PacerMonitor.com. Christian Gabroy -- christian@gabroy.com -- Kaine Messer -- kmesser@gabroy.com -- GABROY MESSER, in Henderson, Nevada 89012, Attorneys for Plaintiff Douglas Vasquez. David Dornak -- ddornak@fisherphillips.com -- Allison Kheel -- akheel@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP, in Las Vegas, NV 89101, Attorneys for the Defendant. GOOGLE LLC: Faces GBP7-Bil. Anticompetitive Class Suit in UK ------------------------------------------------------------ Emma Roth of The Verge reports that Google must face a GBP7 billion (around $8.8 billion) class action lawsuit in the UK that accuses the company of harming consumers by abusing its dominance in search. On Friday, November 22, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruled that the case can move forward, adding to the growing number of legal conflicts Google has to confront worldwide. The class action case was initially filed in September 2023 by consumer rights advocate Nikki Stopford. It alleges that Google's anticompetitive practices made it more expensive for companies to advertise on the platform, leading to higher prices for millions of consumers across the UK. The lawsuit argues that Google "forced" Android phone makers to ship their phones with Google Search and Google Chrome, something the European Union has already gone after Google for. It also says Google paid Apple "billions" to make Google the default search engine on Safari -- an issue that figured prominently in a recent ruling against Google in the US. "Google continues to rig the search-engine market to charge advertisers more, which raises the prices they charge consumers," Stopford said in a statement. "This UK legal action seeks to promote healthier competition in digital markets, and to hold Google accountable." Google asked a London tribunal to toss out the lawsuit in September, but the CAT now unanimously agreed that it should proceed. "We still believe this case is speculative and opportunistic -- we will argue against it vigorously," Paul Colpitts, Google UK's senior counsel, said in an emailed statement to The Verge. "People use Google because it is helpful; not because there are no alternatives." Google is currently the subject of several lawsuits, including one from the US Department of Justice that could force Google to sell Chrome. In addition to lawsuits from Epic Games and Yelp, the search giant is facing more legal trouble from the DOJ over its advertising technology. It also recently lost an appeal to get around a $2.7 billion antitrust fine in the EU. [GN] GRETCHEN WHITMER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY EDWARD COCHRANE, et al., v. GRETCHEN WHITMER, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-10648-SFC-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint by motion or answer and granting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' contemporaneously filed motion for class action certification & appointment of class counsel. The WSU Defendants request this extension due to the infancy of this case and the length, breadth, and complexity of the Plaintiffs' 779-page Complaint and its 636 exhibits. It will take an extraordinary amount of time to analyze the Complaint in its entirety and respond by motion or otherwise. The WSU Defendants additionally request the Court to set a briefing schedule that does not require the WSU Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Class Motion, if such a response is necessary, until the Defendants have filed their answers to the Complaint, if required, and the parties appear before of the Court. Moreover, it is premature to respond to any motion for class certification at this time due to the lack of development of the record in this instance. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vENybG at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Martha J. Olijnyk, Esq. Craig S. Dickinson, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@miller.law mjo@miller.law csd@miller.law GRIMMWAY ENT: Faces Allegretti Over Contaminated Carrot Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY ALLEGRETTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a GRIMMWAY FARMS, Case No. 1:24-at-00964 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated who purchased the Defendants carrot products. On Nov. 16, 2024, Defendant issued a voluntary recall of the Products due to possible E. coli outbreak. The following Products were listed in the recall: -- Organic whole carrots, which do not have a best-if-used-by date printed on the bag, but were available for purchase at retail stores from August 14 through October 23, 2024, -- Organic baby carrots with best-if-used-by-dates ranging from September 11 through November 12, 2024. The recalled carrots should not be available for purchase in stores but may be in consumers' refrigerators or freezers. The Center for Disease Control has stated that E. coli are germs called bacteria. They are found in many places, including in the environment, foods, water, and the intestines of people and animals.3 Some E. coli can make people sick with diarrhea, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, sepsis, and other illnesses. The infection is "most likely to sicken pregnant women and their newborns, adults aged 65 or older, and people with weakened immune systems," says the Plaintiff. According to the complaint, the Products are unfit for their intended consumption because they are contaminated with the harmful bacteria, E. coli. The Plaintiff and her infant daughter became ill following consumption of the Products. The Plaintiff and consumers do not know, and did not have a reason to know, that the Products purchased were contaminated with E. coli. Consumers expect the food they purchase to be safe for consumption and not contaminated by harmful bacteria, which can cause a serious infection, the suit further asserts. Grimmway Enterprises Inc. doing business as Grimmway Farms, grows, produces, and supplies agricultural products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Bohren, Esq. YANNI LAW APC 145 South Spring Street, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (619) 433-2803 E-mail: yanni@bohrenlaw.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Jan. 30, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL SCOTT, v. HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-04658-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a scheduling order: Event Deadline Fact discovery cut-off: Sept. 12, 2025 Expert disclosures: Oct. 3, 2025 Rebuttal expert disclosures: Oct. 24, 2025 Expert discovery cut-off: Nov. 14, 2025 Last day to file motion for class Jan. 30, 2026 Certification: Last day to file dispositive and April 3, 2026 FRE 702 motions: Pretrial conference: Aug. 6, 2026 Jury Trial: Aug. 17, 2026 Healthcare Management Solutions provides clinical compliance and health care technology services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=McVCuG at no extra charge.[CC] HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Vladimir Gusinsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Hertz Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2024, that Company continues to defend itself from 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 (“DGCL”) by providing the Sponsor Stockholders with a veto right over the Board’s ability to hire or fire the Company’s Chief Executive Officer (the “CEO Approval Right”) 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 (collectively, “Defendants”), 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. HERTZ CORPORATION is a Delaware corporation which also conducts business in California.[BN] HUNTINGDON STATE: Court Rules on Plaintiff's Amended Complaints --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Christopher C. Conner of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on the two amended complaints filed by the remaining plaintiffs in the case captioned as BOBBY KENNETH WILLIAMSON, et al., Plaintiff v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-1781 (M.D. Pa.). This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 regarding the conditions of confinement in Huntingdon State Correctional Institution. The case was originally filed as a putative class action by three individual defendants on behalf of a class of SCI-Huntingdon inmates. After the court dismissed the class complaint and granted the remaining individual plaintiffs, Bobby Kenneth Williamson and Antonio Bundy, leave to amend their individual claims, they filed two separate amended complaints. According to the allegations in Williamson's amended complaint, he has been incarcerated in SCI-Huntingdon since December 2020. The complaint alleges that SCI-Huntingdon's infrastructure is deteriorating due to its age and its proximity to the Juniata River. Williams's primary claims for relief relate to his alleged exposure to asbestos. According to the complaint, under the direction of Rivello and Holms, prison staff scraped asbestos-containing material and lead paint from cells without proper safety measures, such as warning signs or ventilation. Workers allegedly wore contaminated clothing throughout the unit, exposing inmates, including Williamson, to asbestos. Williamson claims this caused breathing difficulties and nosebleeds. Despite witnessing the conditions daily, Defendant Davis, the prison’s health care administrator, allegedly took no action. The amended complaint asserts that Williamson was exposed to asbestos again on February 22, 2024, when workers drilled holes in the wall of his housing unit and did not take preventative steps to stop the spread of asbestos in the unit. Williamson purportedly inhaled asbestos during this process. The amended complaint also asserts that Williamson has been exposed to harmful lead paint and black mold. In addition to the specific claims of wrongdoing by defendants Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager, the amended complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that several supervisory defendants failed to implement policies and procedures to mitigate the presence of asbestos, lead paint, and mold in the prison. Williamson's amended complaint asserts state law claims for negligence and negligent supervision, deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. He seeks compensatory and punitive damages. According to Bundy's amended complaint, he was first transferred to SCIHuntingdon in 2020. The amended complaint alleges in conclusory fashion that the prison lacks sufficient ventilation, that there is black mold and asbestos in the prison, that officials retaliated against him for filing this case, that water in the prison is contaminated with bacteria and chemicals, that the prison's infrastructure is collapsing, that officials did not respond quickly enough to a fire in 2020, and that the prison is infested with rats, mice, and other vermin. The amended complaint does not name any defendants, nor does it allege that any individuals were aware of the conditions of Bundy's confinement. Judge Conner holds, "We will dismiss Williamson's amended complaint in part and Bundy's amended complaint in its entirety without further leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The case will be allowed to proceed solely with respect to Williamson's deliberate indifference claim against Rivello, Banks, Price, McMullen, Holms, and the facility maintenance manager and Williamson's negligence claim against defendants Rivello and Holms." A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DcXCSI ILLINOIS: Court Tosses Petition for Writ of Mandamus in French Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MARCELLUS A. FRENCH, SR., #M21081, Petitioner v. MENARD WARDEN, Respondent, Case No. 3:24-cv-01714-SPM (S.D. Ill.), Judge Stephen P. McGlynn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Illinois dismisses without prejudice the Plaintiff's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Plaintiff has not named a respondent. Because the Plaintiff seeks a transfer to another facility, the Court has listed the Warden of Menard Correctional Center, his current custodian, as the respondent on the docket. Petitioner Marcellus French, an individual currently in custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at Menard Correctional Center, commenced this action by filing with the Court a document titled "Motion for Mandamus," which was construed and docketed as a petition for writ of mandamus. The case is now before the Court for preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Under Section 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant, who by law is immune from such relief, must be dismissed. In the Petition, French alleges that he was denied due process of law when he was found guilty of a disciplinary ticket and sanctioned with segregation without a fair and impartial hearing before the Adjustment Committee. He also asserts that as of filing his petition on July 16, 2024, he has been in segregation for 14 days, and during this time, he has been subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement and denied medical care. After his placement in segregation, on July 2, 2024, for seven days, he went without sheets, towels, a fan, yard time, the ability to shower, and hygiene items. When he was able to shower, the shower area was unsanitary, infested with germs, mold, urine stains, and rust. His cell has flooded twice with sewage, and he was not provided cleaning supplies to clean and sanitize his cell after the flooding. Mr. French states that he is unable to exercise in his cell due to its small size, and he has not been afforded recreation time. Finally, he alleges that since being placed in segregation, he has not received medical care for his infected toenails and back pain and spasms. He requests an immediate transfer to another facility, immediate release from segregation, monetary damages, the provision of immediate medical treatment, and an order of protection "to be placed on" certain staff members. Judge McGlynn notes that two different federal statutes govern writs of mandamus, and French has cited neither in the Petition. Regardless, the Court has no authority to grant mandamus relief against state officials in this case. Under Section 1361, federal mandamus jurisdiction is limited to actions against "an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof." Judge McGlynn says French has not named a respondent, but it is clear he is seeking relief from employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections, not federal officials. Section 1651 is also not an applicable statute in this case, as it does not vest the Court with jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against state officials, Judge McGlynn opines. Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus on French's behalf to anyone at Menard Correctional Center. The Court notes that allegations in French's petition are of the sort that could potentially be raised in a Section 1983 lawsuit. Section 1983 allows inmates to pursue a civil cause of action against local government officials for violations of their constitutional rights. The Court will not automatically convert French's writ of mandamus application into a Section 1983 action without his permission, but he will be afforded a 30-day window to file an amended pleading under Section 1983 if he wishes to do so. If he does file an amended pleading, French should be aware that he must have exhausted all available administrative remedies for each of his claims against the Defendants before the filing of this lawsuit on July 16, 2024, under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. If French did not exhaust his available administrative remedies at Menard Correctional Center before bringing this action, Judge McGlynn says his unexhausted claims will be dismissed without prejudice, and he may file a new lawsuit to address the claims once he properly exhausts (if there is still time to do so before the 2-year statute of limitations expires). For these reasons, the Court dismisses without prejudice the Petition for Writ of Mandamus for lack of federal jurisdiction. The motion for status is granted in light of this Order. The motion to accept claim as a class action is denied as moot. Mr. French will have 30 days to file an amended complaint, failing to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail French a copy of the standard civil rights template. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/f6ecbeme from PacerMonitor.com. INJURED WORKERS: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.075-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions report that a $1.075 million class action settlement will resolve claims that Injured Workers Pharmacy failed to protect consumers from a 2021 data breach. The Injured Workers Pharmacy settlement benefits individuals whose contact information or identifying information, such as date of birth or Social Security number, was potentially compromised in the data breach that began in January 2021, discovered in May 2021 and disclosed in February 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, Injured Workers Pharmacy failed to prevent a data breach that resulted in unauthorized access to certain email accounts on its computer systems, potentially exposing personal information of current and former customers. Plaintiffs in the case argue the Injured Workers Pharmacy data breach could have been prevented through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Injured Workers Pharmacy is a full-service workers' compensation pharmacy that delivers prescriptions to injured workers. Injured Workers Pharmacy has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $1.075 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Injured Workers Pharmacy settlement, class members can receive up to $5,000 in compensation for unreimbursed economic losses, such as identity theft damages and credit expenses. Class members can also receive a pro rata cash payment that will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed and the amount of funds available, but payments are predicted to exceed $50 per valid claimant. The Injured Workers Pharmacy data breach settlement also offers two years of free credit monitoring. The exclusion and objection deadline was Nov. 8, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 16, 2025. The claim form deadline is Dec. 9, 2024. Who's Eligible Individuals whose contact information or identifying information, such as date of birth or Social Security number, was potentially compromised in the data breach disclosed by Injured Workers Pharmacy in February 2022 Potential Award $5,050+ Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, credit reports, police reports, tax documents, IRS letters and other documentation of data breach-related losses. Claim Form Deadline 12/09/2024 Case Name Webb et al. v. Injured Workers Pharmacy LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-10797-RGS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Final Hearing 01/16/2025 Settlement Website IWPDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator IWP Data Settlement Administrator PO Box 1031 Baton Rouge, LA 70821 (844) 927-1257 Class Counsel Raina C Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC David K Lietz MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS CROSSMAN PLLC Defense Counsel Jordan S O'Donnell Claudia D McCarron MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] IROQUOIS NURSING: Settlement in Pallotta Suit Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants final approval of the parties' class action settlement in the lawsuit in the lawsuit titled JORDAN PALLOTTA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and ALLIYAH RAWLINS, individually an on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IROQUOIS NURSING HOME, INC., and any related entities, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-01197-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y.). On Sept. 22, 2023, Named Plaintiff Jordan Pallotta, a Certified Nursing Assistant, filed this action alleging that Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., and Medcor Staffing, Inc., violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by, inter alia, maintaining an unlawful policy or practice of deducting meal breaks from paychecks regardless of whether or not the employee actually took a break. The parties later stipulated to amend the putative class complaint to include Alliyah Rawlins as a Named Plaintiff. On May 21, 2024, the parties notified the Court that they had reached a partial settlement: Named Plaintiff Rawlins had reached a settlement with Iroquois. Thereafter, Named Plaintiff Pallotta stipulated to the dismissal of the claims against Defendant Medcor. On July 31, 2024, the Court granted Named Plaintiff Rawlins's unopposed motion for: (1) certification of the settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement agreement; (3) approval of the proposed class notice; and (4) an Order scheduling a Final Approval Hearing. The Court certified the following Settlement Class: all employees and former employees in the positions of Certified Nursing Assistant and Licensed Practical Nurse employed by Iroquois Nursing Home, Inc., between Feb. 28, 2018, and July 31, 2024. A Final Hearing was scheduled for Nov. 20, 2024. Thereafter, the parties distributed the Class Notice and Claim Form to the Settlement Class. No Class Members have opted out or objected to the Settlement. On Oct. 18, 2024, Rawlins moved for final approval of the class action settlement. The motion is unopposed. The Court grants the unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement. The Court finds that that the Settlement is procedurally fair and has been reached through arms' length negotiation between experienced counsel after adequate discovery. The Court finds that the settlement satisfies the nine factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463 (2d Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2000). The Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement is approved. The Court finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of the Named Plaintiff and the Class, in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Hurd directs the parties to implement all terms and provision of the Settlement Agreement. Class Members, who have not properly and timely exercised their opt out rights, are conclusively deemed to have released or discharged the Defendants and their present and former owners, officers, directors and employees from, and are permanently enjoined and barred from asserting, either directly or indirectly, against the Defendants, any and all claims released in the Agreement. The Settlement Fund will be distributed to the Class Members, pursuant to the Agreement, all in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, to those individuals who have elected to participate in the settlement, including the service award to the Named Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 each, professional costs and fees in the amount of $180,000, and claims administration fees in the amount of $12,000. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice, and close the file. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yczxj8bm from PacerMonitor.com. J GILBERTS: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Response Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion and staying the Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification pending resolution of the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Defendants request the Court issue an order on an emergency basis staying the Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' recently filed motion for conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action and the Court's consideration of the same. In sum, the Court should not reward Plaintiffs' obvious gamesmanship and allow them to end run around their arbitration obligations. To save judicial resources and avoid significant prejudice to Defendants, the Court should grant this Motion and render its decision on the pending Motion to Compel and Stay Proceedings before any other pending motion. The Defendant is an upscale casual steakhouse. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KtLCEX at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Sarah J. Millsap, Esq. Nicholas B. McGrath, Esq. Kirsten A. Milton, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 10050 Regency Circle, Suite 400 Omaha, NE 68114 Telephone: (402) 391-1991 Facsimile: (402) 391-7363 E-mail: Sarah.Millsap@jacksonlewis.com Nicholas.McGrath@jacksonlewis.com kirsten.milton@jacksonlewis.com JKS HOME: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York grants preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned KAYCE SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JKS HOME IMPROVEMENT, LLC, JEREMY SAGER, and BRITTANY SAGER, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01509-AMN-ML (N.D.N.Y.). The matter came before the Court on the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, Conditional Certification of the Settlement Class, Appointment of Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiff's Proposed Notice of Settlement ("Motion for Preliminary Approval"). On Aug. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed the Motion for Preliminary Approval with respect to a proposed Settlement Agreement and Release entered into between the Plaintiff and Defendants JKS Home Improvement, LLC, and Jeremy Sager effective Aug. 6, 2024 (the "Agreement"). The Plaintiff also seeks class certification for settlement purposes only under Rule 23 of all FLSA Class Members and all NYLL Class Members. The Court has considered all of the submissions presented with respect to the Agreement, including the Plaintiff's commitment to discontinue all claims against Defendant Brittany Sager with prejudice following issuance of this Order. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum, the Court finds, preliminarily and for purposes of settlement only, that the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a), the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3), as well as the factors set forth in City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974), have likely been met, warranting class and collective certification for purposes of effectuating settlement only. The Court certifies the following classes for settlement purposes only: (1) FLSA Class: All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees, who worked for the Defendants during the period from Nov. 30, 2020, through the date of the issuance of this Preliminary Approval Order; and (2) NYLL Class: All current and former non-exempt hourly paid employees, who worked for Defendant during the period from Nov. 30, 2017, through the date of the issuance of this Preliminary Approval Order. The Court finds that the Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be preliminarily approved. The Settlement will ensure prompt payment to the Class Members and avoid the risks and expense of continued litigation. The Court appoints McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, as Class Counsel. The Court appoints Arden Claims Service, LLC, as the Settlement Claims The proposed Notice, attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration, and the Claims Form, attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration (which are also attached to the Agreement as Exhibit A), fully and accurately inform the Class Members of all material elements of the action and the proposed Settlement. The Court finds that the method of disseminating the Notice, as provided in the Agreement, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and fully meets the requirements of federal law. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Notice is approved by the Court. Within twenty (20) days after the filing of this Order, the Defendant will pay the Maximum Settlement Amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) into the Qualified Settlement Fund. Within twenty (21) days after the filing of this Order, the Defendants will provide the Settlement Claims Administrator the following information, in electronic form, for all Class Members: name, last known addresses, email addresses, social security numbers, job titles, dates of employment and number of qualified workweeks during the relevant period (the "Class List"). Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Class List, the Settlement Claims Administrator will mail to all Class Members, via First-Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, the Court-approved Notice and Claim Form, and email the Notice and Claim to all Class Members for whom the Class List includes an email address. Each Class Member will have sixty (60) days from the date the Settlement Claims Administrator first mails the Claim Form to return the completed Claim Form. Each Class Member will likewise have sixty (60) days to object to or opt out of the Settlement with additional time for any Class Members to whom Notice was re-mailed as set forth in the Agreement. The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on Friday, April 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Class Counsel will file a Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement on or before March 26, 2025, fifteen (15) days before the Fairness Hearing. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5jsnm8bd from PacerMonitor.com. JOHNSON CITY, TN: Bid for Protective Order in B.P. Suit Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, grants in part the Defendant's motion for a protective order in the lawsuit titled B.P., H.A., S.H., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00071-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.). The case is before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Rules of the Court, and Standing Order 13-02. Now before the Court is the Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and/or Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to Verizon Wireless Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, filed by Defendant City of Johnson City. The Plaintiffs responded in opposition to the motion, and Defendant Johnson City filed a reply. The parties appeared before the Court for a motion hearing on Nov. 6, 2024. Defendant Johnson City's motion relates to the Plaintiffs' subpoenas directed to Verizon Wireless for (1) Mike Street's personal cell phone records, (2) Captain Mike Adams's cell phone records from a cell phone issued by the Johnson City Police Department ("JCPD"), and (3) Lieutenant David Hilton's personal cell phone records. Prior to the hearing, the parties emailed Chambers a joint status report, stating that they resolved the issues relating to Mr. Street's personal cell phone records and Captain Adams's cell phone records. At the hearing, the Court denied as moot Defendant Johnson City's requests relating Mr. Street's and Captain Adams's cell phone records. The remaining issue relates to Lt. Hilton's personal cell phone records. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the Court grants in part and denies as moot in part the motion. The Plaintiffs filed this action on June 21, 2023, and filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint") on March 1, 2024. On Nov. 2, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Judge McCook notes that this motion is not ripe for adjudication. The Amended Complaint alleges that beginning in at least 2018 and continuing to 2021, Sean Williams, a known drug dealer and convicted felon, conspired with Alvaro Fernando Diaz-Vargas and others to drug and rape women, and sexually exploit children, in his apartment in downtown Johnson City. The Plaintiffs state that Defendant JCPD officers conspired with Sean Williams to participate in a venture, the purpose of which was to recruit, entice, harbor, provide, obtain, maintain, and solicit women and children, who had not attainted the age of 14 years, for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts. The Plaintiffs state that JCPD officers were aware of the complaints that Sean Williams had raped women and that officers took overt acts in furtherance of Williams's sex trafficking venture. And despite being aware of such complaints, the Plaintiffs allege that the JCPD failed to investigate them. This failure, according to the Plaintiffs, was motivated, in part, by the officers' discriminatory animus towards women. In addition, the Plaintiffs allege that several Defendants accepted payments from Sean Williams with either the implied or explicit understanding that the Defendants would shield him, permitting him to continue his practice of abuse and trafficking with impunity in exchange for the payments. The Plaintiffs represent three classes: (1) All individuals, including minors, who were sexually abused, drugged, or trafficked by Sean Williams or Alvaro Fernando Diaz-Vargas; (2) All members of the Sex Trafficking Survivor Class, who were sexually assaulted by Sean Williams following the first report to the JCPD of Sean Williams's alleged sexual violence on or about Nov. 7, 2019; and (3) All women, including minors, who reported sexual abuse or trafficking by any person to JCPD from Jan. 1, 2018, to April 25, 2023. The Plaintiffs allege (1) sex trafficking claims, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1591, 1594, and 1595; (2) obstruction of enforcement, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1594, 1595, and 1591(d); (3) aiding and abetting a sex-trafficking venture, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 1591(a)(1) & (2), and 1595; (4) conspiracy to commit violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1594(c), 1591, and 1595; (5) violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; (6) liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. Section 29-20-205; (7) negligence for the failure to train; and (8) negligence for the failure to supervise. On Aug. 21, 2024, United States Chief District Judge Travis A. McDonough entered an Order dismissing some Defendants. On Aug. 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs served a subpoena on Verizon requesting Lt. Hilton's personal cell phone records for 12 date ranges. He is currently a lieutenant for the JCPD. The Plaintiffs and Defendant Johnson City met and conferred about the subpoena but were unable to reach an agreement. Counsel for Defendant Johnson City, therefore, issued a subpoena to Verizon for Lt. Hilton's cell phone records. Defendant Johnson City proposed that its counsel would review the records and ensure that only the date ranges requested were received, redact the length of attorney-client privileged calls, mark the records as Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only, and produce them to the Plaintiffs' counsel. The Plaintiffs did not agree to this proposal. On Aug. 29, 2024, Defendant Johnson City filed its motion seeking a protective order and/or an order quashing the subpoena duces tecum under Rules 26(c) and Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It argues that the Plaintiffs' subpoena, which requests all call logs and data, seeks irrelevant information not proportional to the needs of the case. Defendant Johnson City asks the Court to quash the subpoena, and it proposes that it produce Lt. Hilton's cell phone records with limitations. The Plaintiffs' subpoena to Verizon seeks all call logs for Lt. Hilton for eight time frames. They assert that he played an important role in Sean Williams-related police activity that is the focus of their case. During the hearing, the Plaintiffs explained how each time frame is relevant. The original subpoena requested call logs for twelve time frames, but at the hearing, the Plaintiffs clarified that they seek only eight time frames. In addition, the parties represented that the subpoena seeks only call logs and not content. While the Plaintiffs have somewhat narrowed their time frames, Judge McCook notes that the subpoena still seeks all call logs during the requested times. Defendant Johnson City asserts, "By seeking all data and call logs, without any limitations as to . . . number[s], the Plaintiffs are essentially conceding that the information produced will include personal calls and data unrelated to the instant litigation." The Court agrees. Yet, at the hearing, the Plaintiffs argued that anyone who worked with Sean Williams would have used a burner phone, and therefore, it is impossible for them to create a relevant list of numbers. But the Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence of anyone using a burner phone, Judge McCook points out. Because the Plaintiffs have not limited the scope of their request, the Court finds that it includes largely irrelevant information. The Court, therefore, enters a protective order forbidding the subpoena as written for Lt. Hilton's personal cell phone records. For the reasons explained, the Court grants in part and denies as moot in part Defendant City of Johnson City's Motion for a Protective Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and/or Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued to Verizon Wireless Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The Court enters a protective order forbidding the subpoena as written served on Verizon for Lt. Hilton's personal cell phone records. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated Nov. 20, 2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2r6n93d2 from PacerMonitor.com. Vanessa Baehr-Jones -- vanessa@advocatesforsurvivors.com -- Advocates For Survivors Of Abuse, in Oakland, CA 94602; Ashley Walter -- ashley@hmccivilrights.com -- Hmc Civil Rights Law, PLLC, in Brentwood, TN 37027, for the Plaintiffs. Emily C. Taylor -- etaylor@watsonroach.com -- Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback PLC, in Knoxville, TN 37901-0131; Jonathan Lakey -- jlakey@bpjlaw.com -- Burch, Porter & Johnson, PLLC, in Memphis, TN 38103, for Defendant Johnson City. Emily C. Taylor -- etaylor@watsonroach.com -- Watson, Roach, Batson, Rowell & Lauderback PLC, in Knoxville, TN 37901-0131; Daniel H. Rader, IV -- danrader@moorerader.com -- Moore, Rader, Fitzpatrick and York, P. C., in Cookeville, TN 38502, for Defendant Karl Turner. Daniel H. Rader, IV -- danrader@moorerader.com -- Moore, Rader, Fitzpatrick and York, P. C., in Cookeville, TN 38502, for Kevin Peters. Kristin E. Berexa -- kberexa@fbb.law -- Farrar Bates Berexa, in Brentwood, TN 37027-5366, for Defendant Toma Sparks. Keith H. Grant -- kgrant@rswlaw.com -- Robinson, Smith & Wells, in Chattanooga, TN 37450, for Justin Jenkins and Defendant Jeff Legault. JOHNSON CITY, TN: Jenkins Wins Bid to Quash Protective Order ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jill E. McCook of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted in part and denied as moot in part Justin Jenkins's Motion to Quash and/or for Protective Order in the case captioned as B.P., H.A., S.H., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-CV-71-TRM-JEM (E.D. Tenn.). On November 6, 2024, the parties appeared before the Court for a motion hearing. Plaintiffs seek to depose Mr. Jenkins. At the hearing, Mr. Jenkins announced that he is no longer seeking an order quashing his deposition. The Court therefore finds that request moot. Instead, he is seeking only a protective order barring Plaintiffs from asking questions during his deposition about his financial affairs. Plaintiffs filed this case on June 21, 2023, with a Second Amended Complaint on March 1, 2024. They allege that from 2018 to 2021, Sean Williams, a drug dealer and felon, conspired with others to drug, rape, and exploit women and children. They claim Johnson City Police Department (JCPD) officers conspired with Williams in a sex trafficking operation involving minors, ignored complaints against him, and acted out of discriminatory animus toward women. Plaintiffs also allege some Defendants accepted bribes from Williams to shield him, enabling his continued abuse and trafficking. Plaintiffs represent three classes: (1) "All individuals, including minors, who were sexually abused, drugged, or trafficked by Sean Williams or Alvaro Fernando Diaz-Vargas"; (2) "All members of the Sex Trafficking Survivor Class who were sexually assaulted by Sean Williams following the first report to the JCPD of Sean Williams'[s] alleged sexual violence on or about November 7, 2019"; and (3) "All women, including minors, who reported sexual abuse or trafficking by any person to JCPD from January 1, 2018, to April 25, 2023". They allege (1) sex trafficking claims, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1591, 1594, and 1595; (2) obstruction of enforcement, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1594, 1595, and 1591(d); (3) aiding and abetting a sex-trafficking venture, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1591(a)(1) & (2), and 1595; (4) conspiracy to commit violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1594(c), 1591, and 1595; (5) violations of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; (6) liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 29-20-205; (7) negligence for the failure to train; and (8) negligence for the failure to supervise. According to Plaintiffs, on April 10, 2024, they noticed then-defendant Mr. Jenkins's deposition for July 18, 2024, but because they did not have certain documents, Plaintiffs rescheduled the deposition. The parties later agreed to set Mr. Jenkins's deposition for September 19, 2024, and "[o]n August 5, 2024, Plaintiffs received [Mr.] Jenkins'[s] Eastman Credit Union and Appalachian Community Federal Credit Union Records. On August 21, 2024, United States Chief District Judge Travis A. McDonough entered an Order dismissing several Defendants, including Mr. Jenkins. Specifically, he found:(1) "Plaintiffs [had] not sufficiently alleged a TVPA obstruction claim against [Mr.] Jenkins, because they ha[d] not alleged he reasonably foresaw a federal investigation into [Sean] Williams's sex trafficking at the time he engaged in obstructive conduct[,]" (2) "Plaintiffs[] . . . [had] not alleged that [Mr.] Jenkins engaged in conscience-shocking behavior" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) "Plaintiffs' state-created-anger claims against . . . [Mr.] Jenkins fail because they ha[d] not alleged [his] actions heightened the existing risk [Sean] Williams posed, as is required to state a claim". The Chief District Judge also noted, "Plaintiffs concede in their omnibus response that ‘the facts in the [second amended complaint] are insufficient to allege a beneficiary theory of liability under Sec.[Sec.] 1595, 1591(a) as to . . . [Mr.] Jenkins'". According to Plaintiffs, on August 29, 2024, Mr. Jenkins stated that he would not proceed with the deposition if Plaintiffs intended to ask questions about his financial information. "On September 6, 2024, Plaintiffs issued a subpoena for [Mr.] Jenkins'[s] deposition for the previously scheduled date of September 18, 2024". On September 10, 2024, Mr. Jenkins filed his motion, which seeks "a protective order barring the Plaintiffs from asking questions about his financial records". For grounds, he argues that he is no longer a party and that any inquiry into his financial records is irrelevant. Any questions about his financial records, Mr. Jenkins contends, "would only be intended to harass and annoy him". The Court enters a protective order forbidding inquiries into Justin Jenkins's financial affairs during his deposition. To the extent the Chief District Judge allows Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint that includes Mr. Jenkins as a defendant, the Magistrate Judge may revisit this decision upon an appropriate motion. A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RYt1Tp KANAWHA COUNTY, WV: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Due May 16, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.T., by his parents Michelle and Jamie T. on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, et al., v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COUNTY OF KANAWHA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00057 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Irene Berger entered a second amended scheduling order as follows: 1. Limited Discovery: The parties shall complete service of Limited Discovery requests by Jan. 10, 2025. All discovery during this period, but not disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), shall be completed by March 14, 2025. The last date to complete depositions shall be April 7, 2025. 2. Class Certification: Any renewed motions and/or supplemental filings relating to class certification shall be filed no later than May 16, 2025. 3. Discovery and Depositions: The parties shall complete all discovery requests by May 28, 2025. All discovery, including disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2), but not disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), shall be completed by June 25, 2025. The last date to complete depositions shall be July 23, 2025. 4. Expert Witnesses: The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall make the disclosures of information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) for that issue to all other parties or their counsel no later than April 21, 2025. The party not bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall make the disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) for that issue to all other parties or their counsel no later than May 21, 2025. 5. Summary Judgment and Other Dispositive Motions: All dispositive motions, except those under Rule 12(b), together with depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits, or other such matter in support thereof, shall be filed and served by Aug. 29, 2025. 6. Motions in Limine: All motions in limine shall be filed and served by Dec. 5, 2025, with responses due by Dec. 12, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7TA2vs at no extra charge.[CC] KANSAS: Court Dismisses Hollins v. KDOC Staff Without Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismisses without prejudice the lawsuit entitled RICKY L. HOLLINS, et al., Plaintiffs v. KDOC STAFF, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-03134-JWL (D. Kansas). The Plaintiffs, Ricky Hollins and Richard Butler, are prisoners confined at the El Dorado Correctional Facility ("EDCF") in El Dorado, Kansas. The Plaintiffs proceed pro se. They make allegations about the food they have been served in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU") at EDCF. They claim that the staff distributing the food trays always run out of trays when they get to the Plaintiffs. Staff, then, goes to the warmer and gets two trays that are marked with tape or have a gray tray on top. On an unspecified date, trays were served, the Plaintiffs ate, and afterwards had really bad stomach pains, the Plaintiffs say. This went on for two weeks. At breakfast on another day, the Plaintiffs ate, had the same stomach pain as before, and threw up. After lunch, the same thing happened. On May 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs noticed a clear, oily substance on their trays. The Complaint states that they took samples of the substance and sent it to their families for testing. According to the Plaintiffs, the substance was on their food again on June 5, 6, and 7, July 25, 2024. On July 18 and 20, 2024, the food on their trays was "old and stale." The Plaintiffs assert violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Plaintiffs name the following Defendants: KDOC Staff; Anthony Bishop, KDOC staff; Annika Heptig, KDOC staff; Keenan Dodd, KDOC staff; Dakota Everett, KDOC staff; Dana Flores, KDOC staff; Phillip Marley, KDOC staff; Derrick Pheifer, KDOC staff; Michael Owens, KDOC staff; Kenechukwu Okafor, KDOC staff; Tanner Nelson, KDOC staff; Nathan Cervantes, KDOC staff; Aliexis Cervantes, KDOC staff; Curtis Stephenson, KDOC staff; Kyle Pinkerton, KDOC staff; Matthew Dunagan KDOC staff; Patrick Jewers, KDOC staff; Keyon Reynolds, Unit Team staff; Ethan Ebberts, Aramark staff; Dylan Ebberts, Aramark staff; Michael Ebberts, Aramark staff; Thomas Williams, Warden; David Lewis, R.H.U. Manager; Jannell Buchanan, Unit Team Manager; Craig Brewer; Unit Team Supervisor; and Nicole Scolari, Unit Team Staff. The Plaintiffs seek to be tested for the contaminating substance. They also seek additional relief that they will reveal "at a later date." The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that prisoners seeking relief in a non-habeas civil action in federal court must pay the full district court filing fee, albeit over time if the prisoner qualifies for in forma pauperis status. The Court has previously decided that prisoner plaintiffs may not undermine this statutory obligation by joining in the filing of a single action and that each prisoner plaintiff must file a separate action and pay the full district court filing fee. In addition, the Plaintiffs must comply with Rule 20(a)(1) regarding permissible joinder of plaintiffs. Further, Judge Lungstrum opines that the case cannot proceed as a class action with any pro se plaintiff as class representative. Thus, a pro se plaintiff cannot adequately represent a class or another plaintiff. Accordingly, Judge Lungstrum holds that this case may not proceed as filed and is dismissed without prejudice. Each plaintiff must file a separate complaint accompanied by the full filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with the required supporting financial information. The Court will then address in each case the individual plaintiff's payment obligations under Section 1915(b) and will conduct an initial review of each complaint under Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The Court cautions the potential plaintiffs that there are additional problems with the Complaint as filed. Each plaintiff needs to include factual allegations specific to his individual situation explaining how his constitutional rights were violated. Moreover, the Complaint names numerous defendants, who are not otherwise mentioned in the description of events. The Complaint needs to include factual allegations outlining how each named defendant personally participated in the alleged constitutional violations. Also before the Court is a joint motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis signed by Plaintiff Butler. The joint motion is signed by both Plaintiffs. Judge Lungstrum finds neither motion is on a court-approved form, and neither include the 6-month trust account statement required by law. The Court denies both motions without prejudice. Each Plaintiff should file an individual motion with his individual complaint. The motions must be on court-approved forms and include the required financial information. The Plaintiffs have also filed a joint motion to appoint counsel. They claim they are unable to afford counsel, their claims are complex, and they have limited access to legal materials and limited knowledge of the law. The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of counsel. Judge Lungstrum opines that there is no constitutional right to appointment of counsel in a civil case. The decision whether to appoint counsel in a civil matter lies in the discretion of the district court. The Court concludes in this case that (1) it is not clear at this juncture that the Plaintiffs have asserted a colorable claim against a named defendant; (2) the issues are not complex; and (3) the Plaintiffs appear capable of adequately presenting facts and arguments. Considering these factors, the Court denies the motion. As explained here, Judge Lungstrum holds the case may not proceed as filed. Each Plaintiff, who chooses to file an individual complaint, may also file a motion for appointment of counsel, which the Court will consider. The Court, therefore, orders that this matter is dismissed without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and Motion to Appoint Counsel are denied. The Clerk is directed to send Section 1983 forms and instructions to each Plaintiff. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3h6f4v from PacerMonitor.com. KARS4KIDS INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Dugger Due Oct. 17, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY DUGGER, v. KARS4KIDS INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02419-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Fact discovery cut-off: Aug. 1, 2025 Expert disclosures: Aug. 22, 2025 Rebuttal expert disclosures: Sept. 12, 2025 Expert discovery cut-off: Oct. 3, 2025 Last day to file motion for class Oct. 17, 2025 Certification: Last day to file dispositive and FRE Jan. 23, 2026 702 motions: Pretrial conference: April 9, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. Jury Trial: April 20, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Kars4Kids is a Jewish nonprofit car donation organization that funds year-round youth development, educational and mentoring programs nationwide. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IOtioa at no extra charge.[CC] KNIGHT-SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Has Until Dec. 11 to File Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Hagins, et al., v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated, Case No. 2:22-cv-01835-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn Silver entered an order granting the unopposed motion to modify briefing schedule. -- The Defendant shall have through Dec. 11, 2024, to file their response. -- The Plaintiffs will then have through Jan. 10, 2025, to file their reply. Knight-Swift is a publicly traded, American motor carrier holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PmoKS6 at no extra charge.[CC] LJUBLJANA INTER: Opposition to Class Cert Revised to Jan. 6, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLISON KLEIN, et al., v. LJUBLJANA INTER AUTO D.O.O, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-10079-MWC-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a revised case management order as follows: 1. All fact discovery is stayed. 2. The remaining briefing of the motion for class certification shall proceed according to the following schedule: Item New Date Opposition to Class Certification Jan. 6, 2025 Motion, Disclosure of Opposition Expert Report(s), and Daubert Motions re Supporting Experts: Reply to Class Certification Motion, March 7, 2025 Opposition to Daubert Motion re Supporting Experts, and Daubert Motions re Opposition Experts: Reply to Daubert Motions re April 11, 2025 Supporting Experts and Opposition to Daubert Motions re Opposition Experts: Reply to Daubert Motion re May 12, 2025 Opposition Experts: Hearing re Class Certification May 30, 2025 Motion and related Daubert Motions: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a7ckuU at no extra charge.[CC] MAINE: Court Dismisses Bryan Suit w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRYAN C., et al., v. SARA GAGNE-HOLMES in her official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, and BOBBI JOHNSON in her official capacity as Director of the Maine Office of Child and Family Services, Case No. 1:21-cv-00005-NT (D. Me.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Torresen entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for Class certification, final approval of the Agreement, and attorneys' fees and costs. The case is dismissed without prejudice according to the terms of the Agreement. Without affecting this order's finality, this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter consistent with the terms of the To determine whether to finally approve the settlement, I consider whether it is "fair, reasonable, and accurate" based on the four factors enumerated under Rule 23(e)(2), which I analyzed in my preliminary approval order. Prelim. Approval Order 8–11. Because the parties assure me that "no new circumstances have altered the assessment of any factor" relevant to that analysis, Mot. for Final Approval 8, I now adopt the analysis contained in my preliminary approval order. In my earlier order, I found the proposed attorney's fee award of $675,000 reasonable at that preliminary stage. As noted in my preliminary approval order, I find the fees reasonable after reviewing those awarded in class actions concerning other states' foster care systems. This lawsuit involves claims by five named plaintiffs who represent a class of children who have been or will be prescribed psychotropic medications while in foster care custody in Maine. The Class consists of "children who are or will be in Defendants' foster care custody and who are or will be prescribed one or more Psychotropic Medication[s] while in state care." A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gqO1eP at no extra charge.[CC] MATCH GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) between May 2, 2023 and November 6, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Match Group investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Match Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12766 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Match Group materially understated the challenges affecting Tinder and, as a result, understated the risk that Tinder's monthly active user count would not recover by the time that Match Group reported its financial results for the third quarter of 2024; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about Match Group's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 24, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12766 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MDL 2724: Oral Argument on EPPs' Class Cert Bids Set for Dec. 17 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an order rescheduling general status conference and schedule for class certification hearings. 1. Oral argument on the EPPs' motions for class certification will be held on Dec. 17, 2024 at 10:00 AM, with 90 minutes of argument per side. 2. Oral argument on the DPPs' motions for class certification will be held on Dec. 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM, with 60 minutes of argument per side. 3. The General Status Conference listed for Dec. 12, 2024, is rescheduled to Dec. 18, 2024 at 1:30 PM. The following dial-in information may be used to listen to the General Status Conference: telephone: 267-817-5858/ passcode: 488794182#. All calls are to be muted except for those addressing the Court. 4. The above proceedings will be held in Courtroom 12A of the United States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PeaMPq at no extra charge.[CC] MENTAL HEALTH: Spencer FLSA Suit Decertified as Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret Strickland of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico decertified as a collective action the case captioned as COURTNEY SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00121-MIS-JMR (D.N.M.). On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff Courtney Spencer filed a Complaint seeking unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Defendant Mental Health Resources, Inc., under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Count I) and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (Count II). Plaintiff filed the Complaint as a putative collective action under the FLSA and as a putative class action under the NMMWA. On September 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Step-One Notice Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act in which she requested conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA. On August 1, 2022, the Court granted that Motion and conditionally certified a collective action on behalf of "all individuals employed by Defendant as Care Coordinators who received pay on a salary basis in the last three years." Since then, nine additional plaintiffs have opted into the collective action, while a tenth opt-in plaintiff has been dismissed with prejudice. On May 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer M. Rozzoni issued an Order establishing a July 18, 2024, deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class/collective action certification. Plaintiff never filed a motion for final certification of a collective action under the FLSA and never filed a motion to certify a class under the NMMWA. Judge Strickland holds the Plaintiffs failed to file a motion for final certification of a collective action, and their deadline to do so has long since passed. Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the opt-in Plaintiffs are similarly situated to the named Plaintiff, and the Court must decertify the collective action and dismiss the opt-in Plaintiffs' FLSA claims without prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WW1uZY MERRITT HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Guerrero Suit Gets Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael P. Shea of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the plaintiffs' amended motion for final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned as JESSICA GUERRERO and JEFFREY MATHEWS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRITT HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a MERRITT HEALTHCARE ADVISORS, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00389 (D. Conn.). On May 15, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement. At this same time, the Court approved certification of a provisional Settlement Class for settlement purposes only. According to the Claims Administrator, there are 3,320 members of the Settlement Class who will receive a benefit from a Settlement Claim. The deadline for opting out has passed and seven Settlement Class Members have done so. One Settlement Class Member submitted a timely written objection, which the Court overruled at the Final Approval Hearing, and no one appeared in person to object. There was an adequate interval between mailing of the Notice and the deadline to permit Settlement Class Members to choose what to do and act on their decision. The Court finds pursuant to FRCP 23(e), the proposed Agreement is approved as fair, adequate and reasonable and is in the best interests of Settlement Class Members. The Settlement Class is certified for the purposes of settlement only. The Settlement Class is hereby defined as: All individuals within the United States of America whose PHI/PII and/or financial information was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach discovered by Defendant on November 30, 2022. A Final Judgment in this action is entered and this shall constitute a Judgment for purposes of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54. This Final Judgment shall bind each Settlement Class Member and shall operate as a full release and discharge of the Released Claims against the Released Parties. This Final Judgment and Final Approval Order shall have res judicata effect and bar all Settlement Class Members from bringing any action asserting Settlement Class Members' Released Claims under the Agreement. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P80vmz MIAMI-DADE, FL: Seeks Dec. 16 Extension to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YOAMNA RODRIGUEZ, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Case No. 1:24-cv-20269-JB (S.D. Fla.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting the unopposed motion for extension of time for the Defendant to file a response to the renewed motion for conditional certification, through and including Dec. 16, 2024. The Defendant's counsel needs additional time to review, analyze and complete the response to the renewed motion for conditional certification. Because of the time needed to prepare a response, the Thanksgiving holiday and duties on other matters, the Defendant needs an additional 10-day extension of time from the due date to prepare and file the Defendant's response to the motion. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uymiVi at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Eric A. Rodriguez, Esq. GERALDINE BONZON-KEENAN Stephen P. Clark Center 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128 Telephone: (305) 375-5151 Facsimile: (305) 375-5634 E-mail: ear2@miamidade.gov MILLENNIA TAX: McCoy Wins Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENT MCCOY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MILLENNIA TAX RELIEF, LLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-00898-LPR (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Lee Rudofsky entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel. 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), the Court certifies the following Class: "All individuals who, since Sept. 23, 2019, received one or more pre-recorded calls to their cellular telephones using the term "business tax credits" and the phrase "call 818-237-4185 now." Excluded from the Class is Defendant and any entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendant's agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action is assigned and any member of such Judge's staff and immediate family, Plaintiff's counsel, and any claims for personal injury, wrongful death and/or emotional distress. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(B), the Court certifies Class claims against Millennia Tax for (allegedly) violating the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1), for sending pre-recorded robocalls without having prior express consent. 3. In so holding, the Court finds that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence. 4. The Court also finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims or defenses of the Representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims or defenses of the Class and thus satisfy Rule 23(a)(3). 5. Representative Plaintiff Kent McCoy, the named Plaintiff herein, is appointed representative of the Class. 6. Pursuant to Rules 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g), the Court hereby appoints Joe P. Leniski, Jr. of Herzfeld, Suetholz, Gastel, Leniski and Wall PLLC, and James Streett of the Streett Law Firm, P.A. as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class. Millennia Tax Relief is a group of expert Tax Attorneys, Enrolled Agents, CPAs and Tax Advisors. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lpUbeu at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 12, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENE THROWER, v. MOLINA HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00785-WWB-LLL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Berger entered a case management and scheduling order as follows: Deadline for Moving for Class Certification: Aug. 12, 2025 Disclosure of Expert Reports Plaintiff: Sept. 30, 2025 Defendant: Oct. 30, 2025 Rebuttal: Nov. 13, 2025 Discovery Deadline: Nov. 28, 2025 Dispositive Motions, and Daubert Motions: Dec. 30, 2025 All Other Motions Including Motions In Limine: April 1, 2026 Meeting In Person to Prepare Joint Final April 24, 2026 Pretrial Statement: Joint Final Pretrial Statement: May 4, 2026 Molina offers health plans in California, Washington, Utah, and Michigan, as well as primary care clinics. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NESs0P at no extra charge.[CC] MOTIVE ENERGY: Knight Seeks Conditional Cert. of Field Worker Class ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE KNIGHT, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. MOTIVE ENERGY TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01511-CBM-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for conditional certification on Jan. 21, 2025, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(B) and for Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice. The Plaintiff seeks facilitation of court-authorized notice to the Putative Collective Members defined as: "All field workers who worked for Defendant within the United States during the last three (3) years and who were subject to Defendant's 'Travel Time' policies during at least one or more workweeks." The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on Aug. 1, 2023, on behalf of himself and similarly situated field workers, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Motive is a company classified as a telecommunications solutions provider. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OyikPp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq. Jerry Rulsky, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Avenue, 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com jrulsky@forthepeople.com NFHS NETWORK: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration; Kasper Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stays the lawsuit styled STEVEN KASPER, Plaintiff v. NFHS NETWORK, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-04682-JD (N.D. Cal.). In this putative class action, Named Plaintiff Steven Kasper alleges that Defendant NFHS Network, LLC, unlawfully disclosed information about his personal video-viewing habits and activities to third parties, including Meta Platforms Inc. He says that these disclosures violated the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Defendant NFHS Network, LLC (NFHS) has moved to compel arbitration of Kasper's claims. An arbitration agreement was initially formed between NFHS and Kasper in 2016, when Kasper created his free account on NFHS's website. Judge Donato finds that NFHS has carried its burden of demonstrating that it provided "reasonably conspicuous notice of" its Terms of Use (TOU), and that Kasper took some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifested his assent to those terms. When Kasper first signed up for his NFHS Network Account, he was required to click on a box that stated, "I accept the Terms and Conditions," where the phrase "Terms and Conditions" was hyperlinked to the 2014 Terms of Use. The 2014 TOU contained an arbitration clause in which the parties agreed to submit "any controversy or claim arising out of relating to this agreement, the Service, or any alleged breach of this agreement, or any other controversy or claim between the parties, solely and exclusively to arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association ('AAA') in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules." That NFHS prompted users to click a box saying "I accept" rather than "I agree" makes no difference for the purposes of contract formation, and Kasper's argument to the contrary borders on the disingenuous, Judge Donato opines. So too for Kasper's suggestion that it was not "possible to identify" who the "parties" to the arbitration agreement were. Immediately following the dispute resolution clause, the TOU referenced "You," i.e., the user, and "Us," i.e., "NFHS Network, LLC." Judge Donato holds there was no need for a new arbitration agreement to be formed each time Kasper initiated a new period of subscription to NFHS's paid service. The TOU that Kasper accepted when he created a free account with NFHS stated that the TOU "set forth the terms and conditions that apply to use of the NFHS Network site and service ('Service')," and that "[b]y using, visiting, or browsing the Service . . . , you accept and agree to be bound by these Terms." Although the TOU specified that access to premium content on the Service may require a paid NFHS Network subscription, Judge Donato points out that the TOU also stated that "[t]he NFHS Network provides video events and other digital content to visitors to our website and other user interfaces." Put plainly, Judge Donato explains, the TOU governed Kasper's use of NFHS's website whether he had an active paid subscription or not. Even in the periods during which his paid subscription had lapsed, he was an NFHS Network account holder and remained subject to the TOU he clicked to accept when he first created his free account in 2016. Kasper does not contend otherwise, and the record reflects only that his NFHS account was created once in 2016, and that account appears to have remained active at all relevant times. The 2014 TOU, which Kasper accepted at account formation, also stated that the "Terms are subject to change on occasion, so you should review these Terms from time to time, as you will be deemed to accept such changes through your continued use of the Service." The record establishes that the TOU were updated in 2018, 2022, and 2024. Kasper accepted each of these versions by using NFHS's service and specifically having active paid subscriptions during these time periods: September 2016 to April 2017, August 2017 to January 2018, November 2018 to December 2018, March 2021 to October 2021, and February 2023 to May 2024. Judge Donato notes that the 2018, 2022, and 2024 versions of the TOU all contained a materially similar arbitration clause, and all expressly referenced the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules. The complaint filings do not fit the plain language requirements for opting out, Judge Donato says. And Kasper's purported opt-out letter to NFHS dated Sept. 11, 2024, is not a basis for denying NFHS's motion to compel arbitration, which was filed on Aug. 23, 2024. Mr. Kasper's rather half-hearted suggestion that the prospective-waiver doctrine may "perhaps" apply is no basis for declining to enforce the parties' arbitration agreement here, Judge Donato opines. Kasper's arguments that the delegation clause is unconscionable are similarly without merit, Judge Donato points out. Because Kasper's challenges to the delegation clause fail, the remainder of Kasper's unconscionability arguments about the arbitration agreement as a whole are for the arbitrator to decide. Judge Donato orders Kasper's claims to arbitration consistent with the terms of his arbitration agreement with NFHS. This action will be stayed pending the completion of the arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42emzj2e from PacerMonitor.com. NISSAN NORTH: Sixth Cir. Court Rejects Brake Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Brake Report reports that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has overturned the class certification for ten statewide lawsuits against Nissan North America, Inc. The lawsuits centered around alleged defects in Nissan's automatic electronic braking system. The plaintiffs sought to certify statewide classes under Civil Rule 23(b)(3), but the Court ruled that the classes did not meet the material requirements for certification. The ruling vacates the certification and remands for further proceedings. Key Highlights: -- The case involves ten statewide classes alleging defects in Nissan's braking system. -- The Court of Appeals determined that the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) were not met. -- Software updates by Nissan were found to be relevant in potentially differentiating the claims of the plaintiffs. -- A rigorous analysis of the elements of each state law claim is required to determine whether a common question exists. -- The district court is directed to consider Daubert standards for expert witness testimony. Details of the Appeal The plaintiffs, representing vehicle owners from ten states, claimed that the automatic electronic braking system installed in certain Nissan models was defective, occasionally triggering without reason. This defect allegedly caused sudden braking at locations such as railroad crossings, parking garages, and overpasses. Nissan began equipping its cars with these systems in 2016, and by 2017, some drivers reported "phantom activations." The vehicles at issue include the 2017-2021 Rogue, Rogue Sport, Altima, and Kicks models, all of which use the ARS410 radar system. In response to the reported issues, Nissan released two software updates, referred to as "S1" and "S2," aimed at refining radar performance and reducing false activations. Despite these efforts, plaintiffs argued that the problem persisted, and they filed suit against Nissan, alleging breaches of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection statutes. The Court's Reasoning The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the district court failed to properly analyze whether common questions of law or fact existed across the ten classes, specifically given the variations in software versions installed in the cars. The software updates were a significant point of contention, as they potentially remedied the issues for some vehicles but not others, thus challenging the premise of a common defect across all affected cars. The Court emphasized the need for an element-by-element assessment of each state's claims, highlighting that not every class member experienced the alleged issues in the same manner. For instance, the elements of implied warranty and consumer fraud varied significantly by state, and an individualized inquiry was necessary to determine damages and liability. Moreover, the Court directed that the district court must conduct a Daubert analysis on the expert testimony provided by the plaintiffs. This analysis is crucial for determining whether expert opinions are reliable and applicable to the claims at hand. The plaintiff's expert, Steve Loudon, argued that the ARS410 radar was the root cause of the false braking activations. However, Nissan countered that Loudon lacked the qualifications to definitively diagnose the braking systems and failed to properly consider vehicles with updated software. Implications and Next Steps The Court vacated the class certification, sending the case back for further proceedings. Moving forward, the district court must undertake a more detailed examination of the claims, focusing on whether the class members share a common experience with the alleged defect and whether the plaintiffs' expert testimony is admissible under Daubert standards. This decision underscores the challenges of achieving class certification in cases involving complex technology and varied consumer experiences. The appellate ruling is a significant development in the ongoing litigation against Nissan, highlighting the need for precision and rigorous proof at the class certification stage. [GN] OAK RIDGE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Hoipkemier Initial Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled on the motions filed by certain defendants to dismiss the initial complaint in the case captioned as ADAM HOIPKEMIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DUANE V. MILLER, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:24-CV-00600-TWT (N.D. Ga.). This case concerns a scheme to allegedly defraud Plaintiffs of their investments in a fund that they expected would qualify them for charitable tax deductions. Plaintiffs Adam Hoipkemier and Kevin Epps filed this action on behalf of themselves individually, other purported class members, and Nominal Defendant Monteagle-Oak Ridge Fund, LLC. This case is before the Court following removal from the Superior Court of Fulton County. Since being removed, the Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint by special appearance and moved to remand the case to state court, and the Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court notes that the Defendants also previously moved for dismissal of the original complaint filed with the notice of removal, but those motions became moot with the filing of the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs sought relief on six claims in their Initial Complaint: common law fraud (Count I), Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act violations (Count II), civil conspiracy (Count III), breach of fiduciary duty against Miller (Count IV, in the alternative to Counts I–III), appointment of a receiver (Count V), and attorney's fees (Count VI). The Plaintiffs additionally proposed the certification of a class comprising "all persons that claimed a tax deduction on their federal or state tax return based on their membership in Monteagle-Oak Ridge Fund, LLC, excluding affiliates of Defendants." It is before the Court on Defendant Oak Ridge Project Management, LLC's Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint, Defendant Eric MacLeod's Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint, Plaintiffs Kevin Epps and Adam Hoipkemier's Motion to Remand, Defendant Eric MacLeod's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and Oak Ridge and Duane V. Miller's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Defendants' motions to dismiss the Initial Complaint are denied as moot, given that the operative pleading for dismissal purposes is the Amended Complaint. Having now additionally found that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court declines to rule on the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint and will remand these motions with the case for the Superior Court of Fulton County's consideration. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QWglxZ PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Bosarge Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as CHRISTOPHER MILTON WAYNE BOSARGE, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C24-5159-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YfH3Rg PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Burch Civil Rights Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as ANTHONY DAVID BURCH, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C24-5286-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqDKIc PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Elliott Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as SEAN ELLIOTT, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-5486-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kySBuL PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Larson Civil Rights Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as CALVIN L. LARSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-5483-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dl4DTL PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Rudolph Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as BRANDON NEIL RUDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-5856-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IReRSX PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Salanoa Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as MUELU SALANOA, JR., Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C24-5126-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VW4FKb PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Sevasin Civil Rights Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as TROY GLENN SEVASIN, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-5372-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=O5j93e PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Starkgraf Civil Rights Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as KRISTOPHER S. STARKGRAF, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-5390-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says that regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jovv89 PROGRESSIVE MICHIGAN: Settles Insurance Class Suit for $61-Mil. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Araullo, writing for Insurance Business, reports that Progressive Michigan Insurance Co and Progressive Marathon Insurance Co have agreed to pay $61 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the companies failed to include certain fees in total-loss automobile insurance claim payments. The lawsuit claims the carriers did not account for sales tax, certificate of title fees, and vehicle registration transfer fees when paying out claims for vehicles deemed total losses. According to the settlement administrator, the class includes Michigan residents who filed first-party claims with Progressive Marathon for physical damage or theft resulting in a total loss between July 18, 2013, and July 22, 2024. Similarly, Michigan policyholders with Progressive Michigan who filed comparable claims between July 18, 2016, and July 22, 2024, are also part of the class, according to a report from AM Best. The settlement terms specify that class members will receive 45% of any unpaid sales tax or fees, contingent on attorney fees remaining within the $12.5 million to $15 million range. If the court-approved attorney fees are below $12.5 million, the settlement amounts for class members will be adjusted upward. Progressive has denied any wrongdoing, stating that it has adhered to the terms of its Michigan auto insurance policies. The company also retains the right to audit claims submitted under the settlement for accuracy. In addition to the Michigan settlement, Progressive is facing a separate class-action lawsuit in Massachusetts. That case alleges the insurer failed to provide drivers with the option to purchase collision coverage. These justifiable refusals are largely limited to cases involving individuals convicted of insurance fraud, theft, and certain driving violations, as well as vehicles with salvage titles or high-theft risk vehicles lacking sufficient anti-theft protections. According to the complaint, none of these exceptions apply to members of the proposed class, which could include hundreds of drivers. [GN] RAW SPORT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE CRUMWELL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. RAW SPORT SUPPLEMENT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09092 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://getrawnutrition.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant operates the Get Raw Nutrition online retail store, as well as the Get Raw Nutrition interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905) Dana L. Gottlieb (DG-6151) GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal REZOLUT CENTRELAKE: Court Remands Ramirez Case to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Dolly M. Gee of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as Christina Ramirez v. Rezolut Centrelake MSO LLC, et al. The Court remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of jurisdiction. On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff Christina Ramirez filed a Class Action Complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Rezolut Centrelake MSO, LLC, alleging the following state law causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages, (2) failure to pay overtime wages, (3) failure to provide meal periods, (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods, (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination, (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures, (8) failure to produce requested employment records, and (9) unfair business practices. Ramirez brings this action on behalf of the following proposed class: "All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years and 178 days before the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent." On March 4, 2024, Rezolut timely removed the action to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Ramirez subsequently moved to remand the action to state court on the basis that Rezolut failed to demonstrate that the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant claims that the amount in controversy is over $5,424,300, including attorneys' fees. Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to prove its assertions regarding the amount in controversy by a preponderance of the evidence because it relied on unreasonable, conclusory assumptions. Ramirez argues that Amanda Garlin's declaration, which Rezolut provides to support its amount in controversy calculations, is insufficient because it is conclusory and does not set forth summary judgment-like evidence. Rezolut relies on Garlin's declaration to assume one hour of unpaid wages each workday, one missed meal period each day, one missed rest period per day, and a $15 per hour wage rate. Judge Gee says, "Nothing in Garlin's declaration, or in Ramirez's Complaint, supports an assumption that during every single week in the class period, every single class member was not paid for five hours of straight time wages, five missed meal periods, five missed rest breaks, and $10 of unreimbursed business expenses. Consequently, Rezolut's calculations rest on 'mere speculation and conjecture, with unreasonable assumptions.'" The Court concludes that Rezolut failed to satisfy its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. Ramirez's request for judicial notice is denied as moot because the Court did not rely on the subject documents in reaching its decision. The Court also denied as moot the Joint Request for Decision. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HyI5c4 ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Faces Privacy Class Suit After Cyberattack ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Black of Law.com reports that Robinhood has been hit with a proposed class action accusing the stock trading app of failing to enforce appropriate cybersecurity guardrails prior to an October cyberattack. According to the complaint, the personal information compromised in the data breach included Social Security numbers. Robinhood claims that the cyberattack did not happen and that the plaintiffs are alluding to a separate 2021 data security incident. Stock trading platform Robinhood Markets Inc. was slapped with a proposed data privacy class action just one month after a cyberattack allegedly exposed the personally identifying information of millions of Robinhood users. Plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages. Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman and Kopelowitz Ostrow filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 22. It alleges negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Privacy Act. The plaintiffs' class includes at least 100 putative members, per court documents. Counsel has not yet appeared for Robinhood. This complaint was surfaced by Law.com Radar. According to the complaint, a "ransomware gang" known as BASHE claimed responsibility for a data breach at Robinhood "resulting in the acquisition of millions of [consumer] records" and demanded that the company pay a ransom in exchange for deleting the compromised data by Oct. 17. When Robinhood failed to pay the ransom, BASHE posted the information -- which allegedly included the Social Security numbers of Robinhood users -- on the dark web, it said. The plaintiffs argued that, as a financial services company that "collects and maintains highly valuable II on its systems," Robinhood is unusually vulnerable to such cyberattacks and should have taken extra precautions to safeguard consumer data in compliance with industry standards and Federal Trade Commission guidelines for cybersecurity protocol. "Defendant could have prevented this Data Breach by, among other things, properly encrypting or otherwise protecting their equipment and computer files containing PII," attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in the complaint. Robinhood, which was founded in 2013 and launched its mobile app in 2015, is a financial services firm based in Menlo Park, California, that facilitates the electronic trading of stocks, exchange-traded funds and cryptocurrencies. The online brokerage has fielded multiple legal actions, regulatory investigations and controversies spanning the past decade. These included a flood of class actions filed in the wake of the notorious GameStop short squeeze scandal of 2021, in which it was accused of market manipulation after restricting the trade of the video game retailer GameStop and other so-called "meme stocks" purchased in a Reddit-fueled investment spree. In 2021, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ordered the company to pay a record-shattering $70 million fine -- the highest-ever penalty imposed by FINRA -- to resolve claims that it had misled and harmed "millions" of customers impacted by "the firm's systems outages in March 2020." Counsel representing the plaintiffs declined to comment on the litigation. The case has been assigned to Judge Rita F. Lin. Robinhood maintains that the October cyberattack did not take place and that the complaint is in fact alluding to a separate data security leak that occurred in 2021. The company agreed to pay a $20 million settlement to resolve a class action related to the breach in 2022. "This lawsuit is meritless," said a spokesperson for Robinhood in an emailed statement. "Robinhood has not been subject to a ransomware attack and did not suffer a data breach as alleged in the complaint. The data at issue appears to stem from a previously disclosed incident in 2021 that we have addressed." [GN] RUSSELL COUNTY, AL: Court Dismisses Morris Suit w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICKY MACK MORRIS, v. RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Myron Thompson entered a dismissal order: (1) Plaintiff's motion is construed as a motion to withdraw his motions for class certification and appointment of counsel, and as a voluntary notice of dismissal of this lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (2) Plaintiff's motions for class certification and appointment of counsel are withdrawn. (3) The recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is rejected as moot. (4) This lawsuit is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice. This case is closed. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bvUAao at no extra charge.[CC] SAFE STREETS: USA: Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for final approval of of the parties' settlement agreement and for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, settlement administration costs and enhancement awards to plaintiff in the case captioned as Mark Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Safe Streets USA, LLC, Defendant, No. 2:18-cv-00323-KJM-JDP (E.D. Calif.). The motion is unopposed. Anderson filed this action against Safe Streets, alleging violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees. Safe Streets subsequently filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the court granted, staying all representative claims, including those under the California Private Attorneys 28 General Act. The arbitrator found Safe Streets failed to reimburse Anderson for work-related expenses, did not pay for all non-productive time and did not provide accurate wage statements. The court denied Anderson's previous motion for final approval of settlement for failure to allocate 75 percent of civil penalties to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, failure to consider the amounts already awarded in arbitration and inclusion of impermissible expert fees in the litigation cost award. Anderson renewed his motion for final approval of the settlement agreement. The court ordered the parties to submit a status report to determine whether recent amendments to PAGA applied to this proposed settlement. The parties submitted their report, with which the court agrees, saying that the alterations to PAGA only apply to actions filed on or after June 19, 2024. Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) The GSA ($1,270,000) is 65 percent of the potential maximum recoverable penalties ($1,945,550). Given the risk of further litigation, the high value of the PAGA penalty compared to the total settlement amount, the high value of the settlement amount in relation to the maximum recoverable penalties, the presentation to the government and the lack of negative concerns from aggrieved employees to the proposed settlement, the Hanlon factors weigh in favor of finding the settlement to be reasonable. The court approves the gross settlement award. Attorneys' Fees Anderson requests attorneys' fees of $419,100. Having reviewed the billable hours, the court finds the number of hours was reasonable in this case, particularly in light of its six-year duration with extensive motions practice and settlement conferences. Litigation and Administrative Costs Anderson seeks $51,183.22 in litigation costs and $9,000 in settlement administration costs. The court finds the request for reimbursement of litigation costs, after discounting the expert fees and travel expenses from arbitration, to be reasonable. The administrative costs also are reasonable. Enhancement Award Counsel also seeks a $10,000 enhancement award for Anderson. In evaluating the suitability of an incentive payment courts may consider: (1) the risk to the class representative in commencing suit, both financial and otherwise; (2) the notoriety and personal difficulties encountered by the class representative; (3) the amount of time and effort spent by the class representative; (4) the duration of the litigation; and (5) the personal benefit, or lack thereof, enjoyed by the class representative as a result of the litigation. The Court finds that nearly all factors support granting Anderson a $10,000 enhancement award. He assumed risks by filing the lawsuit, including potential harm to future employment opportunities, and contributed significantly to the case through document provision, deposition, travel, and active participation. Although there was no evidence of personal notoriety or difficulties, the six-year duration and Anderson's modest benefit compared to other class members justify the award. The court grants the motion for final approval of class settlement. The court approves the gross settlement amount of $1,270,000, which includes $419,100 in attorneys' fees, $37,170.79 in litigation costs, $9,000 in settlement administration costs, $10,000 as plaintiff's enhancement award and $794,729.21 remaining for the aggrieved employee and PAGA penalty, which amounts to $198,682.30 and $596,046.91, respectively. The court retains jurisdiction of all matters relating to the interpretation, administration, implementation, effectuation and enforcement of this order and the settlement until all settlement funds are distributed. The parties shall notify the court within seven (7) days after the settlement becomes fully funded. At that point, the court will enter its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WIGsbn SCHNADER HARRISON: Nears Settlement in ERISA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Amanda O'Brien of Law.com reports that a lawsuit accusing the now-dissolved Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis of misappropriating income partner and counsel compensation is on the verge of settling. The suit, filed by former income partner Jo Bennett, had survived a motion to dismiss back in May, with the judge finding Bennett's claims plausible and finding that the factual issues of the case required further discovery. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis and former income partner Jo Bennett are on the verge of settling Bennett's putative class action claims that the now-dissolved firm violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act rules and had misappropriated salaried senior attorneys' compensation from 2018 to its 2023 closure. In a letter filed on Nov. 22 addressed to U.S. District Judge John Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bennett's attorney, Adam Garner of the Garner Firm, stated that both parties agreed to a term sheet resolving Bennett's claims on Nov. 18. The letter further stated that plaintiff's counsel signed the term sheet and that, should the defendants fail to sign the term sheet by Nov. 30, Bennett would be allowed to withdraw from the settlement agreement. Bennett, currently a partner and labor and employment practice chair at Culhane Meadows, filed her class action suit against Schnader Harrison and 34 of its equity partners in February, claiming that nonequity partners and counsel were required to defer part of their annual compensation into the firm's pension plan despite the plan itself not requiring those contributions. Rather than directing those non-required deferrals immediately into the firm's pension plan, the suit alleged, Schnader commingled the funds with its general operating accounts for about 18 months at a time in order to boost the failing firm's finances and pay equity partners. The suit claimed that at the time of filing, Schnader's non-equity partners and counsel had not received the last year and a half of their pension contributions and that the dissolving firm could not access those funds. Schnader Harrison announced its dissolution in August 2023, about six months before Bennett filed her suit, as a result of the firm's failure to find a merger partner or secure a credit line extension to bolster its financial position. Prior to reaching settlement talks, Bennett's suit had survived a motion to dismiss filed by Schnader Harrison's counsel, Andrew Salek-Raham of the Groom Law Group. The motion claimed that Bennett's suit failed to state a claim and that, in the event the courts decided not to dismiss the entire suit, her claims should at least be trimmed. Younge, in his opinion ruling against the motion to dismiss, disagreed, finding that Bennett's claims were plausible and the underlying factual issues of the case required additional discovery. Younge also wrote that arguments related to Bennett's standing to bring the claims would be addressed after she submitted her motion for class certification, then due in August; as of Gardner's letter, however, the class certification briefing deadline had been set for the start of December, with Gardner requesting an extension until Dec. 23 should the proposed settlement fall through. Neither Gardner nor counsel for Schnader Harrison immediately responded to requests for comment. [GN] SECURITAS SECURITY: Refuses to Pay Full Wages, Carrasquillo Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- RASHEED CARRASQUILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-1008 (M.D.N.C., Nov. 27, 2024) alleges that the Securitas willfully failed and refused to compensate the Plaintiff all wages, including for all hours worked, and modified records to avoid compensating Plaintiff for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a week at a rate of one-and-one-half-times his regular rate, due and owing to Plaintiff, in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. The Plaintiffs consist of current and former employees working as non-exempt hourly paid security guards and/or site supervisors. The Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant for approximately nine months. During his employment, the Plaintiff worked for Defendant Securitas as a site supervisor but was not properly compensated for all hours worked through the date of his constructive discharge in or about March 2024, says the suit. The Defendant is in the business of providing on-site, remote, and mobile security services to its clients globally and nationally, including within the State of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. Briahna B. Koegel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class Due May 6, 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO GARCIA VALDEZ and MARBELLA GOMEZ on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. SIGNATURE LANDSCAPE, LLC (Kansas Limited Liability Corporation), Case No. 2:22-cv-02276-TC-ADM (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Angel Mitchell entered an order directing the parties to submit a proposed schedule that assumes the court will set the following case management deadlines 60 days from their current date: Event Extended Deadline/Setting All discovery completed: April 8, 2025 Motion to decertify the conditionally May 6, 2025 certified FLSA class: Proposed pretrial order due: May 13, 2025 Pretrial conference: May 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Potentially dispositive motions (e.g., July 1, 2025 summary judgment): Motions challenging admissibility of July 1, 2025 expert testimony: This is a conditionally certified collective and putative class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and Missouri and Kansas state law. On Aug. 15, 2024, the court granted the parties' joint motion to stay this action pending settlement negotiations. The parties have now notified the court via a joint status report that their mediation was unsuccessful and that they are preparing "a suggested recommendation regarding a revised Phase II Scheduling Order that addresses remaining pre-trial deadlines and settings." The court reminds the parties of its order advising them that, if the case did not settle, "the court will likely reset the remaining case-management deadlines approximately 60 days from their current date." When the parties submit their proposed schedule, they should include the above deadlines and settings and add their proposed dates for expert disclosures and a motion for Rule 23 class certification. Signature Landscape provides full-service landscape maintenance for commercial, multi-family, industrial & municipal properties. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zhmZUF at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Seeks Summary Judgement in Undervalued ACVs Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lurah Lowery, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that State Farm has requested an Illinois district court grant partial summary judgment in a nationwide class lawsuit over alleged undervalued actual cash values (ACVs) and claim payments. If granted, part of the suit would be thrown out before trial. The plaintiffs allege State Farm paid out 4-11% less than what was owed by applying a discount, or "typical negotiation adjustment," to the actual cash value (ACV) of aggregated used vehicle internet prices similar to the ones involved in claims. State Farm is accused of breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violations of Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/2. Earlier this month, the court denied State Farm's request for an indefinite stay on discovery and proceedings. The request was made due to the pending appeal of a similar case against Progressive that would review the court's certification of a class of policyholders, according to State Farm. The plaintiffs' total loss payments were allegedly decreased by Progressive's use of a projected-sold adjustment in the calculation of totaled vehicle ACVs. State Farm said in its Nov. 21 motion that consumer protection laws in four states protect them from the relevant allegations made in the lawsuit: Alaska and West Virginia: The insurance industry is exempt from consumer protection laws. Mississippi: The consumer protection law only applies to merchandise and state courts have ruled that auto insurance isn't merchandise. Kentucky: Courts agree the state's consumer protection law doesn't allow class actions. "Unjust enrichment claims must fail when a contract governs the relationships between the parties," State Farm wrote in its motion. "All named plaintiffs entered contracts for insurance policies with State Farm, and they claim State Farm breached its duty to pay under those policies. There is no dispute that a contract governs the relationship between plaintiffs and State Farm, so summary judgment is warranted on the unjust enrichment claims. "Summary judgment also is proper as to 23 plaintiffs' claims that State Farm breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The law governing these named plaintiffs considers a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to be a breach of contract. When an independent claim for breach of contract is raised, the separate claim for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must fail. State Farm is thus entitled to judgment on these claims for all named plaintiffs except Cervantes-White, Johnston, Roemer, and Sager." As for another 17 plaintiffs, State Farm says they didn't take legal action during their contractual periods. Lastly, State Farm claims that plaintiffs Bernadette Williams and Monica Woods must be dismissed from the suit because their claims have already been settled in prior proceedings. "Williams cannot proceed because the settlement of her claim was presented to and approved by a bankruptcy court," State Farm's motion states. "Her challenges here constitute an impermissible collateral attack. And Woods sued State Farm Mutual, alleging it breached her contract. As part of a settlement for that litigation, Woods signed a release of all claims related to her loss. Accordingly, Williams and Woods must be dismissed from this action." [GN] TECH MAHINDRA: Kent's EPOA Suit Stayed Pending Branson Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the motion filed by Tech Mahindra (Americas) Inc., Tech Mahindra Technologies Inc., and Tech Mahindra Network Services International, Inc. to stay the case captioned as STEPHEN KENT, Plaintiff, v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 24-cv-1168-BJR (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff, Stephen Kent, originally filed this case in King County Superior Court alleging that Tech Mahindra had violated a specific provision of Washington State's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110, which requires certain employers to disclose the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of other compensation and benefits, in each posting for an available position. Tech Mahindra removed the case to the District Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. Now pending before the District Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, Plaintiff's motion to remand this case, and Defendants' motion to stay. On July 2, 2024, Stephen Kent applied on LinkedIn for a job opening as a Data Engineer with Tech Mahindra in King County, Washington. He alleges that the posting for the job opening did not disclose the wage scale or salary range to be offered. He further alleges that he was qualified for the position, and that he expected to learn the rate of pay for the open position before completing the entire application. Mr. Kent alleges that he lost valuable time applying for the position and his ability to negotiate pay remains adversely affected. Mr. Kent claims to represent more than 40 potential class members who also applied for jobs with Tech Mahindra for positions that did not disclose the wage scale or salary range. Mr. Kent filed this lawsuit against Tech Mahindra the same day, July 2, 2024. His complaint is strikingly similar to numerous other putative class-action lawsuits filed by multiple plaintiffs represented by Emery Reddy, PLLC, and subsequently removed to the District Court by the defendants. Tech Mahindra filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that Mr. Kent is a professional plaintiff who lacks statutory standing under the EPOA, and he failed to plausibly allege an EPOA claim for himself or for a putative class. Mr. Kent then filed a motion to remand the case back to state court on the basis that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Kent asserts that he lacks Article III standing to proceed in federal court. On August 20, 2024, the Honorable Judge Chun certified a question in a similar case (Branson v. Washington Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, 2:24-CV-00589-JHC) to the Washington Supreme Court, asking it to interpret the term "job applicant" as used in the EPOA statute. On October 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of Washington issued an Order accepting the federal certified question for consideration. Tech Mahindra filed the pending motion to stay the case pending the answer to the certified question, which Mr. Kent opposes and asks the Court to first rule on his motion to remand. The District Court agrees with Tech Mahindra that this case should be stayed pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision. The definition of "job applicant" in the EPOA will provide clarity to the meaning and intent of the statute, which informs this Court's interpretation of the procedural violation and who is harmed thereby for purposes of analyzing Article III standing. Further the weighing of hardships favors a stay. Mr. Kent is not prejudiced by the delay in ruling on his remand motion, because denying remand would still result in a stay of any ruling on the dismissal motion, and granting remand would likely also result in a stay of the case moving forward in state court pending the Washington Supreme Court's decision. A stay will serve the orderly course of justice and conserve both the District Court's and the parties' resources. Accordingly, the District Court shall stay this case and defer ruling on Plaintiff's motion to remand and Defendant's motion to dismiss pending the Washington Supreme Court's opinion on the certified question. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WnVfSJ TEKSYSTEMS INC: Bid to Stay Avery, et al Case Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part TEKsystems, Inc.'s motion to stay the case captioned as BO AVERY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Calif.), in its entirety pending resolution of Defendant's interlocutory appeal. A class of Recruiters for TEKsystems, Inc. allege TEK improperly classifies Plaintiffs and other Recruiters as exempt from California overtime, wage, and hour laws and therefore illegally underpays Recruiters. After the Court certified the class of approximately 540 class members, Defendant moved to compel arbitration of the claims of 123 class members who were purportedly bound by recently imposed arbitration agreements. The Court denied the motion, and Defendant appealed the decision. Now pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to stay the entire case pending resolution of Defendant's interlocutory appeal. Defendant also requests the Court hold its September 23, 2024 order granting Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in abeyance pending resolution of the appeal. The question is whether the Court must stay the entire case when the pending interlocutory appeal only involves the arbitrability of the claims of 20% of the certified class. Defendant argues that pursuant to Coinbase, Inc. v. Biekski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), Defendant's "filing of a Notice of Appeal automatically stays all proceedings and divests this Court of jurisdiction." Plaintiffs asserts Coinbase "only necessitates a stay of claims of the 123 class members who are the subject of [Defendant]'s appeal," arguing the claims of the four named plaintiffs and 413 certified class members who are not subject to the appeal should proceed. According to Judge Corley, "Coinbase does not require the Court to stay the entire the case, including the vast majority of the case not involved in the appeal. Defendant's insistence that the language of Section 16 mandates a stay notwithstanding Coinbase's reasoning not applying to the facts of this case is unavailing." However, she adds, as Plaintiffs concede, Coinbase necessitates staying the claims of the 123 class members who are the subject of Defendant's appeal. Thus, as to those class members' claims, the Court grants Defendant's request for a stay. As to the named plaintiffs and the 413 class members who did not sign an arbitration agreement, Coinbase does not require a stay. Defendant contends even if the Court has discretion to proceed "piecemeal" with this case, doing so would be against the interests of efficiency, fairness, and judicial economy. The Court disagrees. Defendant also claims that without a stay, discovery will need to be reopened at a later date. Judge Corley explains that there are four named plaintiffs and 413 class members whose claims are not subject to Defendant's appeal. Because the suit includes allegations of ongoing and future harms as to some of these class members, as opposed to alleging only past harms, these class members have a strong interest in moving their claims forward. The potential 'injury' of additional discovery and costs is limited, while the potential damage which may result from a stay is substantial. So, the Court declines to stay the claims of the named plaintiffs and the 413 class members who are not involved in the Ninth Circuit appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision." Having carefully considered the parties' written submissions, and having had the benefit of oral argument on November 7, 2024, the Court grants in part Defendant's motion for a stay of proceedings as to the 123 class members whose claims are involved in Defendant's interlocutory appeal. The Court also holds in abeyance its order granting partial summary judgment as to those same 123 class members. The Court denies the pending motion to stay proceedings as to the named plaintiffs and the 413 class members whose claims are not implicated by the pending appeal. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dnbEn4 TIER-ONE PROPERTY: Scheduling of Telephonic Conference Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLANCA CASTILLO DE MARTINEZ, et al., v. TIER-ONE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02339-LLA (D.D.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order scheduling a telephonic conference for the purpose of addressing any questions or concerns the Court may have regarding the joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement and for certification of a settlement class, filed on July 15, 2024. Tier One is a facility services provider of commercial janitorial, building maintenance, and specialty property services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EY4rn0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael K. Amster, Esq.od Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: John M. Remy, Esq. D. Christopher Lauderdale, Esq. Laura Ahrens, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1701 Parkridge Blvd., Suite 300 Reston, VA 20191 Telephone: (703) 483-8300 Facsimile: (703) 483-8301 E-mail: John.remy@jacksonlewis.com TOTAL RENAL: Spencer Suit Remanded to King County Superior Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, remanded the lawsuit entitled SHANNON SPENCER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOTAL RENAL CARE, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as DAVITA; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01359-RSM (W.D. Wash.), to the Superior Court of Washington State in and for the County of King. On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action in King County Superior Court, alleging that the Defendant violated the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act ("EPOA"), Washington Revised Code Section 49.58.110, by failing to disclose the wage scale and salary range in its job postings. The Defendant removed the case on Aug. 28, 2024. The Defendant argues that although the Complaint does not expressly state that the Plaintiff was a "good faith" applicant, his allegations support that he intended to gain employment because allegedly he was "qualified to perform the position," he expected to learn the rate of pay during his application process, and suffered specific harms when he did not. After reviewing the Complaint, briefing, and the remainder of the record, the Court agrees with the Plaintiff that remand is proper. The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Complaint includes allegations that the Plaintiff was a bona fide applicant or that the conclusion in this case should be different than the many other cases cited by the Plaintiff from this district. The Defendant cites Spencer v. Vera Whole Health, Inc., No. C24-337 MJP, 2024 WL 3276578, *3 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2024) for the type of allegations that could survive a challenge to Article III standing. The Court notes that the plaintiff in that case is the Plaintiff in this case. The Defendant then argues that the Plaintiff's allegations here satisfy the guidance from this Court to demonstrate his Article III standing at the pleading stage. He has, in detail, pled that he was qualified and that he spent time and effort completing an application with the expectation that he would learn of the salary, but did not, and the alleged lack of disclosure has harmed him. Judge Martinez holds that the Defendant's point here is quite flimsy. The Plaintiff pleads he "lost valuable time," but this has already been identified by the Court as insufficient to establish Article III standing. Judge Martinez opines that the Defendant highlights how the instant Complaint is different than complaints in the Plaintiff's prior cases, but none of the differences indicate that the Plaintiff was offered an interview, engaged in pay negotiations, or had a bona fide interest in the position. The only clear difference is the conclusory allegation that the Plaintiff was qualified to perform the position. Spencer v. Vera Whole Health, Inc., does not stand for the proposition that this alone is sufficient, Judge Martinez holds. This does not strike the Court as demonstrating Article III standing on its own, given the boilerplate nature of the remainder of the pleading and the above law. Judge Martinez finds the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to identify a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to give rise to Article III standing. Without standing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remand is proper. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Remand. The case is remanded to the Superior Court of Washington State in and for the County of King. The case is closed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2whjmau4 from PacerMonitor.com. TRANSCORE LP: Plaintiff Loses Bid to Amend Certain Dismissed Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as JULIE E. THOMAS (ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATIONED), Plaintiff, v. TRANSCORE, LP., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-1040 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the plaintiff's leave to amend those counts in the complaint which were dismissed with prejudice. On April 28, 2021, the plaintiff Julie Thomas filed a class action complaint against the defendants Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and TransCore for various claims concerning improperly charged "V-Tolls," a flat toll rate utilized in situations where a driver's transponder fails to be identified as an E-ZPass customer. On May 19, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint against TransCore for: (1) a violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count I); (2) fraudulent concealment (Count II); (3) fraudulent misrepresentation (Count III); (4) breach of contract (Count VI); (5) conversion (Count V); and (6) unjust enrichment (Count VI). It further alleged: (1) unjust enrichment (Count VI); and (2) negligent conversion (Count VII) claims against the Commission. The defendants, in turn, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. On August 29, 2024, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Specifically, the Court dismissed Counts I through III and VIII without prejudice and Counts IV through VII with prejudice. It additionally granted the plaintiff leave to amend within thirty days of the Order. The plaintiff, however, filed a motion seeking leave to amend to replead the claims the Court dismissed with prejudice on September 27, 2024. The plaintiff asserts that her previously-dismissed claims with prejudice are now amended and sufficiently well-grounded in fact and law. These claims are as follows: (1) breach of contract against TransCore (Count IV); (2) conversion against TransCore (Count V); (3) unjust enrichment against TransCore and the Commission; and (4) negligent conversion against the Commission (Count VII). A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cpuoyF TRC STAFFING: Court Suspends Class Certification Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burke v. TRC Staffing Services, Inc. (TRC Staffing Services Inc., Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-02398-VMC (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Victoria Marie Calvert entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to suspend class certification deadlines. The Court finds good cause for granting the motion and excusable neglect where any deadlines ran in the underlying cases. The deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification is suspended until the Court's entry of a scheduling order in this consolidated action. TRC provides recruitment services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwJpI2 at no extra charge.[CC] TRINITY TEEN: Gozun Terminated as Class Representative ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLIE SHERMAN, and AMANDA NASH, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, V. TRINITY TEEN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Wyoming corporation; ANGELA C. WOODWARD; JERRY D. WOODWARD; KARA WOODWARD; KYLE WOODWARD; and DALLY-UP, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-00215-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott Skavdahl entered an order terminating Anna Gozun as class representative and withdrawing Donati Law, PLLC as counsel. Trinity is a residential treatment center offering family therapy and outpatient programs. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bGjWqB at no extra charge.[CC] TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by Dec. 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order: -- Discovery Recommences: Dec. 2, 2024 -- Lead Plaintiff to File Motion: Dec. 23, 2024 for Class Certification -- Defendants' Opposition to Class Feb. 25, 2025 Certification: -- Lead Plaintiff's Reply in Support March 28, 2025 of Class Certification: -- Fact Discovery Completed: Aug. 14, 2025 -- Deadline for the party(ies) with Sept. 18, 2025 the burden of proof to serve expert report(s): -- Deadline for party(ies) to submit Oct. 23, 2025 rebuttal expert report(s): -- Expert Discovery Completed Nov. 25, 2025 (including all expert depositions): -- Post-Discovery Status Conference: Dec. 2, 2025 -- Summary Judgment Motions Due: Dec. 15, 2025 -- Oppositions to Summary Judgment Jan. 24, 2026 Motions Due: -- Replies in Support of Summary Feb. 28, 2026 Judgment Motions Due: A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tbB0rr at no extra charge.[CC] UNION SECURITY: Lewis-Abdulhaadi Wins Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTOINETTE LEWIS-ABDULHAADI, v. UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO. AND SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Case No. 2:21-cv-03805-WB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Wendy Beetlestone entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class certification as follows: Class Certification 1. Counts I, II, and IV-VIII are hereby certified as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) on behalf of the following Class: "All participants in an ERISA-covered plan that provided or offered dependent child life insurance that is or was insured by Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life") or Union Security Insurance Company ("USIC") at any time from and including Aug. 25, 2015 until March 14, 2025 and for which a participant paid premiums (or premiums were paid) for at least one child in such dependent child life insurance coverage and either (i) had no enrolled children who met the definition of dependent child under the policy while such premiums were paid for coverage or (ii) had a claim for dependent child life insurance denied because the child's age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable policy or based on the child's age and because the child was not a fulltime student; and the beneficiaries of such persons." Excluded from the Class are (1) any fiduciaries of the Plans with decision-making or administrative authority related to the establishment, administration, funding or interpretation of the Plan, (2) persons not eligible for benefits under Section IV of this Settlement Agreement. Additionally, any person does not meet the requirements of Section (ii) of the Class Definition and will be excluded unless (a) Defendants identify that person as a Class Member With Denied Claim or (b) the claim for dependent child life insurance was denied solely because the child's age was beyond the oldest allowable age for a dependent child under the applicable policy or a claim denied solely based on the child’s age and because the child was not a full-time student. 2. The Court finds that Counts I, II, and IV-VIII satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). 3. The claims meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because ERISA fiduciaries of the Plan are required by law to interpret and consistently apply the terms of an employee benefit plan to all similarly situated participants. 4. Any Class Member who has previously filed a lawsuit challenging the denial of child dependent life insurance during the Class Period will be permitted to exclude themselves from this Class so long as the request for exclusion bears a postmark that is no later than March 3, 2025, and sets forth (a) the full name, address and contact information for the Class Member, (b) sufficient information to identify the prior lawsuit (c) a written statement that the Class Member wishes to be excluded; (d) the signature of the Class Member. 5. Plaintiff Antoinette Lewis-Abdulhaadi is appointed the representative of the Class. 6. Attorneys R. Joseph Barton, Jonathan Feigenbaum, and Adam Garner are appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel. Union Security is a national provider of Medicare Supplement insurance solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oJ6ijq at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED HEALTHCARE: Court Rules on Motions to Seal in Samson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled on the motions to seal filed by the parties in the case captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.). UHC's Motion to Seal is granted in part and denied in part. Samson's Motion to Seal is granted in part. Plaintiff Frantz Samson brings this case as a class action against Defendant United HealthCare Services, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Court certified two classes: the "Wrong Number Class" and the "Do Not Call Class," both of which UHC sought to decertify. In support of their arguments for and against decertification, the Parties filed certain information which they each now seek to seal in order to protect it from public disclosure. After the Motions to Seal were filed, the Court granted the Parties' stipulated motion seeking to: (1) withdraw the motion to decertify; (2) decertify the "Do Not Call Class"; and (3) strike all case deadlines in anticipation of a preliminary approval motion. Despite this development, the Court must determine whether certain information filed in support and opposition of the now-withdrawn motion to decertify the classes should remain under seal. UHC first seeks to seal the transcripts of phone calls made to UHC members, as some of those transcripts may contain those members' Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"), such as addresses and Social Security numbers, and information protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, such as medications, medical diagnoses, and medical information numbers. UHC next seeks to seal portions of the Kwon Declaration, which contain data received from third-party subpoena requests to telecommunications companies and includes an expert analysis of the "structure of the carrier's data as well as specific criticisms of carrier data." The Court grants the Motion as to the transcripts but denies the Motion as to the data from the third parties. Judge Pechman says there is a compelling interest in protecting the personal and medical information found in the call transcripts, which are to remain under seal. There is no such interest, however, in maintaining under seal the information derived from third-party subpoenas. By December 13, 2024, UHC shall file versions of (1) the now-withdrawn motion to decertify the classes; and (2) the Kwon Declaration with supporting documents, with such information unredacted. Samson first seeks to seal produced audio recordings of phone calls made by UHC to its members and other individuals. Samson next seeks to maintain under seal information that UHC designated as confidential. The Court grants in part the Motion as to the audio recordings and grants the Motion as to UHC's confidential information. According to Judge Pechman, "The information designated as confidential by UHC shall remain under seal. The call recordings shall remain sealed and in possession of the clerk of court pending a request that they be unsealed." A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GjVdzJ USAA CASUALTY: Fails to Pay Full Purchasing Fees, Forte Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICAELA BRACAMONTE and TIFFANY FORTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 7:24-cv-09113 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024) is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiffs and all members of the Classes who were named insureds under USAA automobile policies issued in the State of New York for private passenger automobiles, who made a claim for comprehensive or collision loss under their Policy that was adjusted and paid by USAA as a total loss, and who were not paid full purchasing fees and taxes, as part of their total loss insurance claim. USAA's failure to pay full Purchasing Fees for first-party total loss claims is a breach of the Policy and also violates New York law. The Purchasing Fees at issue here are to be paid by USAA in addition to USAA's assessment and payment of the value of the total loss vehicle. The Plaintiffs and the Classes dispute USAA's failure to pay the full Purchasing Fees as part of USAA's payment for their total loss claims, but do not dispute USAA's assessment and payment of the amount of value of their total loss vehicle. The standardized form Policy allows USAA to adjust and settle a first-party motor vehicle total loss claim via a monetary payment of "Actual Cash Value" or "ACV." According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically underpaid not just Plaintiffs, but thousands of other putative Class members under the Policies. The Defendants owe their insureds for ACV losses for total loss vehicles insured with comprehensive and collision coverage. ACV is defined by the USAA Policy as "the amount that it would cost, at the time of loss, to buy a vehicle of the same make, model, body type, model year, and equipment, with substantially similar mileage and physical condition." USAA is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Ruairi McDonnell, Esq. Kaitlyn M. Burns, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 29 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10006-3205 Telephone: (212) 952-0014 E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com kburns@fdpklaw.com - and - Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. Andrea Clisura, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 499 Route 304 New City, New York 10956 Telephone: (201) 630-8820 Facsimile: (201) 604-8400 E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com aclisura@vozzolo.com - and - Edmund Normand, Esq. Christopher Hudon, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: 407-603-6031 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com ean@normandpllc.com christopher.hudon@normandpllc.com VALVE CORPORATION: Wolfire Games Wins Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wolfire Games LLC et al v. Valve Corporation (re VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the appointment of co-lead class counsel, and -- denying Valve's motion to exclude. 1. The following class is certified: "All persons or entities who, directly or through an agent, paid a commission to Valve in connection with the sale or use of a game on the Steam platform on or after Jan. 28, 2017, and continuing through the present until the effects of its scheme are eliminated (the "Class Period"), and where either (1) the person or entity was based in the United States and its territories or (2) the game was purchased or acquired by a United States-based consumer during the Class Period." Excluded from the Class are (a) Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliate entities, and employees, and (b) the Court and its personnel. 2. Wolfire and Dark Catt are appointed class representatives; and 3. The firms below are appointed Co-Lead Class Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Constantine Cannon LLP; Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. The case management schedule, which the Court previously adopted remains in force. The Court will defer setting a schedule beyond summary judgment until it disposes of such motions, currently due 180 days from today. This ruling has no bearing on a putative consumer class, as described in this and related cases. The Plaintiffs allege that Valve requires content and price parity for any game it distributes; this means Valve will not sell or support a game if a game company sells it for less or offers a better version of it elsewhere. The Plaintiffs call this a Platform Most Favored Nations ("PMFN") Policy Valve Corp. is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fd3en3 at no extra charge.[CC] VENUS CONCEPT: Boston Robotic Wins Bid to Temporarily Lift Stay --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BOSTON ROBOTIC HAIR RESTORATION, PLLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. VENUS CONCEPT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-07933-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants Boston Robotic's motion to temporarily lift the stay and for interim relief Defendant Venus Concept, Inc., markets and sells the ARTAS iX, a robotic device designed to assist physicians with follicular unit extraction surgery, a time- and labor-intensive hair transplant procedure. The ARTAS iX promised to perform all three steps of the procedure: graft harvesting, recipient site making, and now, implantation. Venus advertised the implantation functionality of the ARTAS iX across its marketing campaign for the product. Plaintiffs Boston Robotic and Melissa R. Schneider, M.D., P.C., relied on Venus's representations about robotic implantation in choosing to purchase the ARTAS iX for their medical practices. The Plaintiffs' putative class action complaint, filed in October 2021, alleged that the ARTAS iX failed to perform as promised, because the ARTAS iX cannot actually perform implantation. The complaint included nine claims, including fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Venus moved to compel arbitration on Dec. 15, 2021. In that motion, Venus argued that the arbitration provision at issue was valid, enforceable, and not unconscionable. In addition, Venus argued that the arbitration clause delegated threshold issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. On Jan. 31, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery into the existence of an agreement to arbitrate and whether any such agreement was unconscionable prior to opposing the motion. The Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct limited discovery solely on the issue of unconscionability. Subsequently, on Oct. 7, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Venus's motion to compel arbitration. While the Plaintiffs argued that the "Terms and Conditions document" that included the arbitration provision "was not incorporated into the Purchase Agreements," the Plaintiffs did not dispute that the arbitration agreement delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. On March 30, 2023, the Court granted Venus's motion to compel arbitration; it found that the arbitration provision was incorporated by reference into the Purchase Agreement and noted that the Plaintiffs raised no other contract defenses. The case was stayed pending the completion of arbitration. Boston Robotic filed its demand for arbitration with JAMS on May 3, 2023. The Honorable Robert A. Baines (Ret.) was appointed as the arbitrator on Oct. 12, 2023. Boston Robotic alleged the same nine counts in arbitration as it did in its original complaint. The parties do not dispute that, on Dec. 18, 2023, the parties engaged in an initial arbitration management conference. Subsequently, Venus requested and was granted leave to file a motion to dismiss. On Feb. 6, 2024, during oral argument on Venus's Motion to Dismiss, Venus's counsel raised, for the first time, a new response to Boston Robotic's contention that certain provisions in the parties' arbitration agreement were unconscionable and, thus, unenforceable. Effectively, Venus argued that when Boston Robotic opposed Venus's motion to compel arbitration in federal court, it raised only contract-formation arguments--i.e., it had not argued the unconscionability of any of the provisions in the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, Venus contends that Boston Robotic has waived its unconscionability arguments and cannot raise them for the first time in arbitration. Boston Robotic, however, argues that because their agreement undisputedly delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, any argument made by Boston Robotic in response to the motion to compel arbitration (other than contract formation) would have had to have been "specific to the delegation provision." Judge Baines ordered additional briefing on the issues of (1) whether Boston Robotic had waived any of its challenges to the arbitration agreement by not making them in the federal court, and (2) whether Venus had waived its right to make that waiver argument by not including it in its reply papers for the pending motion. After reviewing the papers, Judge Baines concluded that, irrespective of the merits of Boston Robotic's attacks on these provisions, he lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and rule on those challenges. Following Judge Baines' order, Boston Robotic filed the present motion. It argues that given the arbitrator's determination that he lacks jurisdiction to decide whether the disputed contractual provisions are enforceable, this Court should do so (and should find they are not enforceable under well-established California law). Alternatively, this Court should clarify for the arbitrator that he does have jurisdiction to resolve the parties' dispute over the aforementioned contractual provisions and instruct him to do so. Either way, an authoritative determination of the enforceability of the disputed contractual provisions is needed, and Boston Robotics requests that this Court decide who should decide. Because the parties did not dispute that the arbitration provision delegates the decision of the arbitrability of the dispute to the arbitrator, the Court directed the parties to arbitration. To clarify, because the parties agreed the arbitration clause delegated gateway questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, once this Court found that agreement to arbitrate valid, it referred all arbitrability disputes to the arbitrator, including whether the contractual statute of limitations and limitations on attorneys' fees and punitive damages clauses were unconscionable. Because of the delegation clause, Judge Tigar holds that Boston Robotic is correct that it could not have challenged the unconscionability of these clauses to this Court and properly raised them for the first time in arbitration. For these reasons, the Court grants Boston Robotic's motion to temporarily lift the stay and for interim relief. The Court clarifies that its prior order referred gateway issues of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Accordingly, the arbitrator has jurisdiction to consider whether any provisions (aside from the delegation provision) of the arbitration agreement are unconscionable. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/577v9fn8 from PacerMonitor.com. VERIZON ONLINE: Court Stays Cabrera Suit Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Andre M. Espinosa of the United States District Court for District of New Jersey granted Verizon Online LLC's unopposed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the case captioned as PEDRO PEPIN CABRERA, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-7780-ES-AM (D.N.J.). The motion was referred for decision by the Honorable Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b). On June 11, 2024, pro se plaintiff Pedro Pepin Cabrera filed this action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, alleging Verizon unlawfully disclosed his personal information to third-party credit reporting agencies in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq., and claiming he sustained at least $52,500 in damages thereunder. Verizon removed the action to this Court on July 15, 2024, asserting subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. It now moves for an order compelling arbitration of Plaintiff's claims under a contractual arbitration provision in the agreement entered into when Plaintiff opened an account for Verizon internet service. Because it is not facially apparent from the Complaint that a valid arbitration agreement exists, a summary judgment standard applies to determine whether the Court must compel arbitration. Plaintiff has not opposed this motion, and thus the Court considers the facts proffered by Verizon as uncontroverted. Verizon raises two arguments in support of its motion. First, it argues that the Court must compel arbitration because the arbitration agreement between the parties delegates questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator. Second, Verizon contends that, even in the absence of a such a delegation provision, arbitration would be required under the traditional two-part analysis, because this dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement. As a preliminary matter, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff and Verizon entered into a valid contract when Plaintiff opened his internet service account. Judge Espinosa explains that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that, in completing the online form to open an account, Plaintiff received notice of the service's terms and conditions, including the arbitration agreement, and expressly indicated his acceptance of those terms in completing the order. The arbitration agreement, in turn, expressly incorporates the AAA Rules, which empower the arbitrator to decide the enforceability and scope of the Arbitration Agreement. As such, Plaintiff's completed order for internet service with Verizon manifests the parties' clear and unmistakable agreement to delegate threshold arbitrability issues to the arbitrator. Plaintiff has not challenged either the arbitration agreement's formation or the validity of the agreement to delegate arbitrability, and thus there is "nothing is left for the District Court to decide pursuant to the FAA." The Court must compel the parties to submit their dispute to arbitration under FAA Section 4 and, pending arbitration, must stay the action under Section 3 of the statute. Pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 4, Plaintiff shall engage in arbitration of his claims in accordance with his agreement with Verizon. Pursuant to the FAA, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3, this action is stayed pending the completion of arbitration. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zTrsxd VIVA TIME: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE v. Viva Time Corp., Case No. : 1:24-cv-12262 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 27, 2024) is a class action alleging that the Viva Time failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://peugeotwatches.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Viva Time provides to their non-disabled customers through the website. The 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says the suit. Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the website. Thus, Viva Time 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. Peugeotwatches.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by Viva Time. Yet, Peugeotwatches.com contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website.[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 VOLVO CARS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Jan. 24, 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned JENNER v. VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, as Case No. 2:15-cv-06152 (D.N.J., Filed: Aug. 12, 2015), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order that the oral argument on the following motions shall proceed on Jan. 24, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification, -- Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, and -- Motions to preclude expert opinions of Peter Barcia, Dr. Nidhi Agrawal, and Dr. David W. Gilbert The nature of suit states Contract -- Diversity-Fraud. Volvo manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles.[CC] VUORI INC: Parties Seek Initial OK of Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrence Buchanan, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. Vuori, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-01121-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties asks the Court to enter an order granting preliminarily approval of class action settlement. The "FLSA Federal Class" shall consist of all individuals who (a) file or filed a valid consent to join the Action; and (b) who held an hourly, non-exempt retail position at Vuori outside of California from Mar. 14, 2020, to Dec. 8, 2023. The "California Class" shall consist of all individuals who held an hourly, non-exempt retail position at Vuori in California from Aug. 12, 2021, to Dec. 8, 2023. The Plaintiff's attorney contacted a Simpluris, Class Action Experts and CPT Group. The bid from Class Action Experts and CPT were higher than Simplurus. The Plaintiff's attorney chose Simpluris because they had the lowest bid, and he had experience using them once before claims. Over 50% of the employees worked for the Defendant for four weeks or less. Class council believes that in this case greater than 50% of the California class members will respond. Class council also believes at a lower percentage of the FLSA class will respond because they are not earning as much money as the California class. Vuori provides online apparel products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 28, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cdi1bx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Dal Bon, Esq. WISDOM LAW GROUP 1625 The Alameda, Suite 207 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 915-3700 E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.net WALT DISNEY: Agrees to Settle Gender Pay Gap Suit for $43.25-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that Disney has agreed to pay $43.25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of systematically paying women less than male employees with the same experience. The plaintiffs' attorneys filed a motion on Monday, November 25, to seek approval of the settlement, which would cover a broad range of salaried Disney employees in California. If the petition is granted, thousands of women who have worked for Disney since April 1, 2015, will receive checks to compensate for the wage disparity. The suit was filed in 2019, alleging that Disney policies -- including basing a new hire's salary on their pay at their previous employer -- resulted in discrimination against women. A study commissioned by the plaintiffs found that one category of women was paid 2% less than their male counterparts, while a separate category was paid .58% less. Disney continues to dispute the validity of the study, but has agreed to use it as a basis on which to apportion the settlement funds. Under the agreement, the plaintiffs' attorneys can seek judicial approval for up to one third of the settlement amount, or about $14.4 million, to cover legal fees, plus $1.8 million in litigation expenses. Nine women were named in the lawsuit as representatives of the Disney employees. LaRonda Rasmussen, a financial analyst at the company, discovered in 2017 that six men with her title were all making significantly more than she was, according to the lawsuit. After she complained, she received a $25,000 raise, but was still paid less than her average male counterpart, according to the suit. "I strongly commend Ms. Rasmussen and the women who brought this discrimination suit against Disney, one of the largest entertainment companies in the world," plaintiffs' attorney Lori Andrus, a founding partner of Andrus Anderson, said in a statement. "They risked their careers to raise pay disparity at Disney." In December 2023, Judge Elihu Berle granted class status to 9,000 women in the case who were suing under the California Equal Pay Act, which was considerably strengthened in 2016 under Gov. Jerry Brown. The women in the class were non-union, salaried employees who worked at Disney's theme parks, cruise ships, and film and TV studios, including ABC, Marvel and Lucasfilm. Employees at ESPN, Pixar, Hulu, Fox and FX were not included. Disney's lawyers fought the allegations, arguing that it was impossible to accurately compare skill and experience levels across a wide range of disparate jobs. In a statement, Disney defended its pay practices and said it was pleased to have brought the case to a conclusion. "We have always been committed to paying our employees fairly and have demonstrated that commitment throughout this case, and we are pleased to have resolved this matter," a company spokesperson said. Under the agreement, Disney will hire an outside industrial consultant to train employees on benchmarking pay levels. A labor economist will also continue to work for the company over the next three years to conduct pay studies. Andrus said she was encouraged by that provision. "I believe this will help strengthen the company and its brand as a key employer and contributor to California's economy," she said. The two sides worked with mediator Hunter R. Hughes III, over a couple of months this summer and fall before reaching a settlement in principle. Women who are part of the settlement class will receive communications asking if they wish to opt out of the agreement or object to the settlement. If they do nothing, they will get a check. [GN] WESTLAKE SERVICES: Parties Seek Continuance of Dec. 12 Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL KLARE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a WESTLAKE FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint stipulation and application for Continuance of the Dec. 12, 2024, Hearing on the motion for class certification. On Oct. 7, 2024, the Parties submitted their joint briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Based on the Court's Motion Schedule, which required that the Motion be noticed for hearing on a Thursday between 28 and 35 days from the filing date of the Motion, the Parties noticed the Motion for hearing on Nov. 7, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Because of an unavoidable conflict of counsel, this Court granted the Parties' joint stipulation and application for a continuance of the Motion hearing from Nov. 7, 2024, to Dec. 12, 2024. In their previous joint stipulation, the Parties stated that "in the interim, the Parties are working to resolve this case outside of Court." Counsel for the Parties have continued to discuss settlement and are getting closer, although they have not reached a settlement yet. They believe there is a chance of settling the matter over the next month. As a result, to focus their efforts on settlement and avoid the expense of resources of the Parties and the Court in preparing for the hearing on the Motion, the Parties respectfully request that the Court continue the hearing currently set for Dec. 12, 2024. The Parties anticipate additional settlement discussions prior to Dec. 12, 2024. They stipulate that they will file a joint status report with this Court by Dec. 18, 2024, requesting a hearing on the Motion pursuant to Judge Olguin's civil motion schedule if a settlement agreement is not reached. The Parties will promptly notify the Court if a settlement agreement is reached Westlake Services provides financial services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHg9oD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. Denali S. Hedrick, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com dhedrick@baileyglasser.com - and - David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Zachary T. Chrzan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com zach@tomorrowlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Katalina Baumann, Esq. David Gettings, Esq. Jonathan Kenney, Esq. Sarah Reise, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1400 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 622-2700 Facsimile: (949) 622-2739 E-mail: katalina.baumann@troutman.com dave.gettings@troutman.com jon.kenney@troutman.com sarah.reise@troutman.com WOLFSPEED INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Jan. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Wolfspeed, Inc. (NYSE: WOLF) between August 16, 2023 and November 6, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 17, 2025. SO WHAT: If you purchased Wolfspeed securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Wolfspeed class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30954 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 17, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: The alleged representations in this action concern Wolfspeed's Mohawk Valley, New York fabrication facility. The complaint alleges that defendants provided the public with revenue projections that depended on the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility ramping its production to meet and/or exceed demand for its 200mm wafer product. According to the lawsuit, defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while simultaneously misrepresenting and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Wolfspeed's growth potential and, in particular, the operational status and profitability of the Mohawk Valley fabrication facility. First, to meet its publicly stated projections, Wolfspeed would have to cancel or otherwise indefinitely suspend planned future projects such as the facility in Saarland, Germany. Second, the Company would have to terminate a significant portion of its workforce and shutter its Durham, North Carolina fabrication facility. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Wolfspeed class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=30954 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] WOOD RESIDENTIAL: Has Until Dec. 4 to Answer Amended Nelson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned VANESSA NELSON, Plaintiff v. WOOD RESIDENTIAL, LLC; WOOD PARTNERS, LLC; WOOD REAL ESTATE INVESTORS, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00419-ART-BNW (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada extends to Dec. 4, 2024, the Defendants' deadline to file answers to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. The parties stipulated, and the Court approved, to extend the current deadline, Nov. 20, 2024, two weeks to Dec. 4, 2024, for the Defendants to file answers to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. On Oct. 9, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the Defendants' respective Motions to Dismiss. The Court ruled from the bench and denied the Defendants' motions on Oct. 9, 2024. A Minute Order followed on Oct. 22, 2024. On Oct. 24, 2024, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and first request to extend the Defendants' deadline to file answers to the Amended Complaint to Nov. 20, 2024. The Amended Complaint includes twelve (12) claims and asserts collective claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class action wage related claims under Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 608, spanning twenty-four (24) pages and 158 discrete paragraphs, plus subparagraphs as to the class/collective claims, requiring substantive responses in answers coupled with affirmative defenses. The Defense Counsel has been unable to complete draft answers for all the Defendants as Counsel became unexpectedly ill with the flu on Nov. 5, 2024, and was out of the office for over a week due to illness and was unable to work on the Answers during that time. Given Defense Counsels' recent absence due to illness, and the time necessary to prepare answers given the scope and breadth of the Amended Complaint, the Defendants need additional time to complete their answers. Further, the Thanksgiving Holiday is coming when the parties and their counsels will be away with their families for the Holiday. Thus, the parties stipulated to extend the deadline to Dec. 4, 2024, for the Defendants to file answers to the Amended Complaint. A full-text copy of the Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/atwcasfn from PacerMonitor.com. Jason Kuller -- jason@kullerlaw.com -- Shay Degenan, RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Las Vegas, Nevada 89144, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Deverie J. Christensen -- Deverie.Christensen@jacksonlewis.com -- Kirsten A. Milton -- Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C., in Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, Attorneys for Defendants Wood Residential, LLC, Wood Partners, LLC, and Wood Real Estate Investors, LLC. ZETA GLOBAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set January 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Zeta Global Holdings Corp. ("Zeta," "Zeta Global," or the "Company") (NYSE: ZETA). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Zeta Global's business, operations, and prospects, including allegations that: (1) Zeta used two-way contracts to artificially inflate financial results; (2) Zeta engaged in round trip transactions to artificially inflate financial results; (3) Zeta utilized predatory consent farms to collect user data; and (4) these consent farms have driven almost the entirety of Zeta's growth. If you bought shares of Zeta Global between February 27, 2024 and November 13, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/zeta-global/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is January 21, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] ********* 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 ***