/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241209.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, December 9, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 246
Headlines
AETNA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Due April 14, 2025
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
APPLE INC: Appeal Tribunal Expands Class Period to November 15
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in Ill.
BASF CORP: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod
BHP BILLITON: Pennington Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
BODE NEW YORK: Agostini Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
BOSTIK INC: Curry Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
BOYLAND AUTO: Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit w/o Prejudice
BRIAN CASEY: Court Narrows Claims in Diakhate Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Supreme Court Allows Multi-Crown Opioid Suits
BTR TIRES: Nielsen Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
BURNING MAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Pelaez Claims
CAL DEL: Class Action Settlement in Orin Suit Gets Final Nod
CARLE FOUNDATION: Fails to Pay Wages During Military Leave
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Removes Isaacs Suit to W.D.N.C.
CLEARLINK INSURANCE: Julian Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint
COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Status Conference in Duncan Set for Jan. 8, 2025
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to File memorandum Under Seal OK'd
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
DAVID TAX LAW: Iverson Bid to Compel Discovery Partly OK'd
EMIRATES: Plaintiffs' Must File Class Cert Bid by March 31, 2025
ENZO BIOCHEM: To Settle Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Case Remain Stayed, Court Says
EQT CORP: Fact Discovery in Ross Suit Due April 30, 2025
ETZ HAYIM: Class Settlement in Cimino Suit Gets Final Nod
EVOLVE BANK: Bennett Seeks to Appoint Watson as Liaison Counsel
EXRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
FALCON EQUITY: $11.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 21
FLATIRON MEDIA: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Feb. 5, 2025
FLOYD INC: Race Sues Over Misleading Discount Pricing Scheme
GOODRX HOLDINGS: C&H Pharma Balks at Prescription Discount Monopoly
GOOGLE LLC: Phi Finney Law Firm Probes Anticompetitive Conduct
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Carrots
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit
HCA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Cert. in Brevard Due August 15, 2025
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Discounts
IFIT HEALTH: Class Settlement in Balfour Suit Gets Final Nod
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Court to Junk Covachuela Class Cert Bid
JOHN WETZEL: Court Narrows Claims in Williamson Suit
JOHNSON CONTROLS: March 2025 Hearing on Bid to Nix Gumm Suit Set
JRK PROPERTY: Court Tosses Peebles Class Cert Bid
KALEIDA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Must Provide Privilege Log by Dec. 20
LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Palmer National Class Suit Pending in Florida
LAMB WESTON: King Kullen Sues Over Frozen Potato Monopoly
LANE BRYANT: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says
LITTLE FALLS, NJ: To Join Class Suit Over Housing Requirements
LIZZY'S FRESH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Claims
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Suit in Florida
MANU-FORCE CORP: McClain Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 28, 2025
MDL 2262: Bid to File Memo Under Seal OK'd in Antitrust Suit
MDL 2670: Class Action Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod
MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend Kok Cybersecurity Class Suit
NBI INC: Discovery on Class Cert Issues Stayed
NETWORK CAPITAL: Class Cert Hearing Extended to May 19, 2025
NEW CHEUN HING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Allowed to Seal Oral Argument Presentation
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Hall-Landers Can File Transcript Under Seal
NORDIC NATURALS: Must Supplement Sales Responses in Caldwell Suit
NORDSEC LTD: Court Dismisses Hanscom Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
OLD DOMINION: Parties Must File Proper Motion, Court Says
PEACOCK TV: Class Settlement in Winston Suit Gets Final Nod
PHONE LCD: FLSA Collective Conditional Certification Sought
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Bosarge Class Action Stayed
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chambers Amended Complaint
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Torres Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pizzeria Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams WARN Act Suit Seeks to Certify Class
SAFE STREETS: Class Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Nod
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Settlement Deal in Cantave Gets Final Nod
SAN ANTONIO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Clement Alleges
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Dec. 12 Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set
SANTANDER BANK: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Almanzar Suit
SCENTSIBLE LLC: Pourri.com Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
SCRIBE MEDIA: Court Certifies Class of Scribe Employees
SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Larios Alleges
SM ENERGY: Court Junks Garvey Bid to Approve Settlement
SPECIALTYCARE: Dorta Seeks to Certify Neurophysiologist Class
SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Action Settlement in Capaci Gets Final Nod
SPRUCE POWER: Continues to Defend XL Fleet Class Suit in Delaware
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Faces Rammohan Suit Over SEC Disclosures
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Court Partially Stays Avery Suit
TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Connecticut Class Suit
THS GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lynch Suit Claims
TOHVT MOTORS: Final Progression Order Entered in Lazo Class Suit
TRUEACCORD CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Quinn-Davis
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Peters Suit Pending
TYCO FIRE: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Seal Call Transcripts Partly OK'd
UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Court Dismisses Allmaras Suit
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
USC: Zarnowski Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
VALVE CORP: Court Certifies Stream's AntiTrust Class Action
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN: Federal Court Finalizes Wages Class Settlement
WHITEFISH, MT: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Brief by Dec. 13
*********
AETNA INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Deadline Due April 14, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARA BERTON, v. AETNA
INC., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-01849-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an amended scheduling order.
The Court resets the following deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 16 and Civil Local Rule 16-10:
Event Deadline
Deadline to file motion for class certification: April 14, 2025
Deadline to file opposition to motion for May 27, 2025
class certification:
Deadline to file reply in support of motion for June 16, 2025
class certification:
Hearing on motion for class certification: July 17, 2025
at
2:00 pm
On Nov. 5, 2024, the parties submitted a joint stipulation and
proposed order requesting to extend the deadlines set in the
Court's March 21, 2024, scheduling order.
Aetna is an American managed health care company that sells
traditional and consumer directed health care insurance and related
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gZwx56 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Plaintiffs Win Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as H & T Fair Hills, Ltd.,
Mark Hein, Debra Hein, Nicholas Hein, Norman Zimmerman, Donna
Zimmerman, Steven Wherry, Valerie Wherry, Robert Ruebel, Mary
Ruebel, and Larry Ruebel, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Alliance Pipeline L.P., a/k/a Alliance USA,
Case No. 0:19-cv-01095-JNE-DTS (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Joan N.
Ericksen entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is granted.
2. Insofar as the Court dismissed the claims of class members
subject to arbitration agreements, the Order is vacated.
3. The claims of class members subject to arbitration agreements
are stayed.
The Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. The Court granted their
motion and certified this class:
"All persons or entities who held or hold a land interest on
Defendant's Pipeline Right of Way and who, since 2014, were or
are
eligible for crop loss compensation pursuant to Easements or
Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreements."
Alliance is a natural gas pipeline from Canada to the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fpf4s5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
APPLE INC: Appeal Tribunal Expands Class Period to November 15
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Rachael Kent's over GBP1.5bn class action claim against Apple
for alleged overcharging in relation to the Apple App Store has
been expanded to cover consumers who made purchases on the App
Store between 1 October 2015 and 15 November 2024.
In addition to individuals and businesses who, between 1 October
2015 and 8 August 2024, made for themselves and/or another person,
one or more purchases of an app or digital content, services or
subscriptions within an app (excluding Apple apps) from an iPhone
or iPad device in the UK storefront of the App Store ("Relevant
Purchases"), the Competition Appeal Tribunal has confirmed that
individuals and businesses who made Relevant Purchases for the
first time between 9 August 2024 and 15 November 2024 are now also
included.
The expansion of eligible class members comes as the claim proceeds
to full trial on 13 January 2025.
A revised notice, issued by Dr Kent at the direction of the
Competition Appeal Tribunal, confirms that the class now includes
persons who made Relevant Purchases for the first time between 9
August 2024 and 15 November 2024; expanding the claim to cover
individuals and businesses who made Relevant Purchases since 1
October 2024 - 15 November 2024.
If you made Relevant Purchases between 1 October 2015 and 8 August
2024 and were resident or (in the case of businesses) domiciled in
the UK on 5 May 2022, you are automatically included in the claim
unless you opted out before 9 September 2022. If you made Relevant
Purchases for the first time between 9 August 2024 and 15 November
2024 and were resident or (in the case of businesses) domiciled in
the UK on 15 November 2024, you are also now automatically included
in Dr Kent's claim unless you "opt-out" by 27 December 2024. By
opting out you keep the right to bring your own separate claim
against Apple. However, if you opt-out you will not be able to get
any money from this claim (if money becomes available). Anyone
living outside the UK as of 15 November 2024 who meets the criteria
to be included in the class must actively "opt-in" to the claim by
27 December 2024.
For more information on how to opt-out or opt-in, visit
www.appstoreclaims.co.uk/Apple. Class members are encouraged to
check the website for updates about the claim, including access to
Tribunal orders and further guidance.
Further information on the claim
The legal claim applies to most popular apps on iPhones and iPads,
including Fortnite, YouTube, Tinder and many others, that require
payment at the point of download, subscription payments, or allow
for in-app purchases. It does not apply to apps providing "physical
goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app". These
include Deliveroo and Uber, which are not required to use Apple's
payments system or pay Apple the disputed 30% commission on every
purchase of and/or within their apps.
Affected app purchasers, on whose behalf the class action is
brought, will not pay costs or fees to participate in this legal
action, which is being funded by Vannin Capital, a global
litigation funder. The action is insured, which means that class
members have no financial risk in relation to the claim.
Dr Kent is represented by Lesley Hannah, Sofie Edwards, Kio
Gwilliam, Emma Poland, Jonathan Amior, Natalie Jukes, Jake
Henderson, Abigail Masters and Kazi Elias at law firm Hausfeld &
Co. LLP, with barristers Mark Hoskins KC and Matthew Kennedy from
Brick Court Chambers, and Tim Ward KC, Michael Armitage and Antonia
Fitzpatrick from Monckton Chambers
About Hausfeld & Co. LLP
Hausfeld is a leading international law firm specialising in
competition law, with significant expertise in all aspects of
collective redress and group claims.
Contacts
Media enquiries
Palatine Communications - Conal Walsh / Richard Seed / Joshua
Wolff
AppleClaim@palatine-media.com [GN]
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Continues to Defend AOT Class Suit in Ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland 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 18, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the AOT class suit in the
federal district court of Urbana, Illinois.
On September 4, 2019, AOT Holding AG ("AOT") filed a putative class
action under the U.S. Commodities Exchange Act in federal district
court in Urbana, Illinois, alleging that the Company sought to
manipulate the benchmark price used to price and settle ethanol
derivatives traded on futures exchanges.
On March 16, 2021, AOT filed an amended complaint adding a second
named plaintiff Maize Capital Group, LLC ("Maize"). AOT and Maize
allege that members of the putative class collectively suffered
damages calculated to be between approximately $500 million to over
$2.0 billion as a result of the Company's alleged actions. On July
14, 2020, Green Plains Inc. and its related entities ("GP") filed a
putative class action lawsuit, alleging substantially the same
operative facts, in federal court in Nebraska, seeking to represent
sellers of ethanol.
On July 23, 2020, Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC ("MRE") filed a
putative class action in federal court in Illinois alleging
substantially the same operative facts and asserting claims under
the Sherman Act.
On November 11, 2020, United Wisconsin Grain Producers LLC ("UWGP")
and five other ethanol producers filed a lawsuit in federal court
in Illinois alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
claims under the Sherman Act and Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin law.
The court granted ADM’s motion to dismiss the MRE and UWGP
complaints without prejudice on August 9, 2021 and September 28,
2021, respectively.
On August 16, 2021, the court granted ADM's motion to dismiss the
GP complaint, dismissing one claim with prejudice and declining
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
MRE filed an amended complaint on August 30, 2021, which ADM moved
to dismiss on September 27, 2021.
The court denied ADM's motion to dismiss on September 26, 2023.
UWGP filed an amended complaint on October 19, 2021, which the
court dismissed on July 12, 2022. UWGP has appealed the dismissal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
On October 26, 2021, GP filed a new complaint in Nebraska federal
district court, alleging substantially the same facts and asserting
a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.
On March 18, 2022, the Nebraska federal district court granted
ADM's motion to transfer the GP case back to the Central District
of Illinois for further proceedings.
ADM moved to dismiss the complaint on May 20, 2022 and on December
30, 2022, the court dismissed GP's complaint with prejudice. GP
appealed the dismissal.
As of December 31, 2023, the appeal was pending.
The Company denies liability, and is vigorously defending itself in
these actions.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is principally into the
merchandising and transporting agricultural commodities, and
manufacturing products for use in food, beverages, feed, energy,
and industrial applications, and ingredients and solutions for
human and animal nutrition.
BASF CORP: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-03174-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard
Gergel entered an order granting Class Counsel's motion for final
approval of class settlement and final certification of the
settlement class.
The Court also entered an order enjoining any Settlement Class
Member from asserting or pursuing any released claim against any
released person in any forum.
The Court finds that the putative Settlement Class meets this
requirement. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from similar, if not
identical, allegations that Defendant knew of the environmental and
potential human health risks associated with exposure to PFAS, yet
continued to develop, manufacture, distribute, and sell PFAS and
products containing PFAS.
The preliminarily approved Settlement Class consists of
"every Active Public Water System in the United States of
America
that has one or more Impacted Water Sources as of the
Settlement
Date (May 15, 2024)."
The following are excluded from the Settlement Class:
(a) Any Public Water System that is owned by a State government
and lacks independent authority to sue and be sued.
(b) Any Public Water System that is owned by the federal
government and lacks independent authority to sue and be
sued
(c) Any privately owned well that provides water only to its
Owner's (or its owner's tenant's) individual household and
any
other system for the provision of water for human
consumption
that is not a Public Water System.
BASF Corp. operates as a chemical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z32hRf at no extra
charge.[CC]
BHP BILLITON: Pennington Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order granting the Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the
lawsuit entitled Dan Larry Pennington, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BHP
Billiton Petrol (Fayetteville), et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-00178-LPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
The Plaintiffs brought this suit against the Defendants for
contract violations.
On Aug. 18, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, which Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted on Nov. 1, 2024. The
Court ruled that the Plaintiffs' constitutional arguments,
including the due process arguments, would not be serious enough to
invoke the constitutional avoidance canon even if the relevant
statutory language was ambiguous. The Plaintiffs' claims against
the Defendants are, thus, dismissed without prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned Dan Pennington, et al. v. BHP
Billiton Petrol (Fayetteville), et al., Case No. 24-3382, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on
November 22, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on or before January 2,
2025;
-- Appellant's Brief is due on January 13, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appendix is due on January 13, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DAN LARRY PENNINGTON, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
George A. Barton, Esq.
Stacy Ann Burrows, Esq.
Seth K. Jones, Esq.
BARTON & BURROWS
5201 Johnson Drive, Suite 110
Mission, KS 66205
Telephone: (913) 563-6250
(913) 563-6253
- and -
John Charles Weisensell, Esq.
WEISENSELL & MASTRANTONIO
23 S. Main Street, Suite 301
Akron, OH 44308
Telephone: (330) 434-1000
Defendants-Appellees BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (FAYETTEVILLE), LLC, et
al. are represented by:
Michael Bailey Heister, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1777
- and -
David W. Jones, Esq.
Mary Kathryn Raffetto, Esq.
BECK & REDDEN
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 951-3700
- and -
Robert Ryan Younger, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1700
BODE NEW YORK: Agostini Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BODE NEW YORK, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08834 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, through https://bode.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Bode New York, LLC is an American clothing company that makes
clothing from old textiles and newly-made traditional textiles.
[BN]
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
Email: Gevyfirm@gmail.com
BOSTIK INC: Curry Suit Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CURRY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BOSTIK, INC., Case
No. 3:22-cv-00370-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ky.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to enter an order granting his Motion to facilitate notice of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") Collective and authorize him to
issue notice of this action to all production and warehousing
technicians who work or have worked for the Defendant at the
Louisville Plant since June 21, 2019.
-- Under the FLSA and as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
for
Plaintiff's claims under the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act,
("KWHA"), arising from Defendant Bostik's alleged failure to
properly compensate Plaintiff and Collective and Class members
for
"off-the-clock" work and alleged failure to pay all overtime in
violation of the FLSA and the KWHA.
-- The Collective's members are Bostik's current and former non-
exempt employees who work or worked in the Louisville Plant's
production areas since June 21, 2019, through the date of the
Preliminary Approval Order (the "FLSA Collective").
Bostik employed Plaintiff at its Louisville Plant as a non-exempt
Maintenance Mechanic beginning on January 31, 2022.
Bostik is a global adhesive specialist in construction, consumer
and industrial markets.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7YVsi at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
Newtown, PA 18940
Telephone: (215) 867-2399
E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
- and -
Mark N. Foster, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER,
PLLC
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 213-1303
E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com
BOYLAND AUTO: Court Dismisses Armstrong Suit w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM LOUIS ARMSTRONG,
v. BOYLAND AUTO BGMC LLC, GENERAL MOTORS, KUNES BUICK GMC,
AUTOMOTIVE EXPERTS LLC, NATIONAL BUSINESS BROKERS, DORIAN BOYLAND,
and KAUFMAN DOLOWICH, Case No. 2:24-cv-00765-JPS (E.D. Wis.), Hon.
Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order dismissing Armstrong case
without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's orders
The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff William Louis
Armstrong's motion to appoint counsel, to vacate orders, for
preliminary injunction, for extension of time, and for leave to
file interlocutory appeal, be and the same is denied as moot.
The Court has granted the Plaintiff various opportunities to move
his case forward within the constraints of the law, and it has
repeatedly extended his time within which to do so.
Nevertheless, this case is no closer to resolution than it was at
the time of its filing in June 2024, and the Court has spent more
than enough of its limited time parsing Plaintiff’s voluminous
filings, which fail in large part to comply with the Court’s
orders.
In June 2024, the Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the
Defendants, ostensibly on behalf of a putative class, for alleged
violations of both state and federal law.
Boyland Auto was founded in 2004. The Company's line of business
includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wiOq00 at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRIAN CASEY: Court Narrows Claims in Diakhate Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEIKH DIAKHATE, v. BRIAN
CASEY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06736-EAW (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Elizabeth Wolford entered an order on pending motions:
-- The Court denies Respondent's motion to dismiss without
prejudice
as to Petitioner's prolonged detention claim but grants
Respondent's motion in all other respects.
-- Respondent shall file a supplemental brief as described above
within 45 days of entry of this Decision and Order.
-- Petitioner shall file any response within 20 days of receipt of
the supplemental brief.
Petitioner has failed to establish that they have any relevancy to
the claims presented in this action. Petitioner has also not
demonstrated that any alleged deficiencies at the BFDF have
prevented him from presenting his claims in this action. This
motion is therefore denied.
The Court grants Respondent's motion with respect to all claims not
related to the legality of Respondent's prolonged detention pending
removal, but denies it solely as to Petitioner's claim this
detention has become unconstitutionally prolonged.
The Petitioner was provided with specific reasons for his
detention, and he has not plausibly alleged that similarly situated
individuals—including individuals with similar criminal
histories—were not detained. The Plaintiff's claim that his
detention violates the equal protection clause is thus subject to
dismissal.
Pro se petitioner Cheikh Diakhate, a civil immigration detainee
currently held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility ("BFDF")
in Batavia, New York, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J5eVQC at no extra
charge.[CC]
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Supreme Court Allows Multi-Crown Opioid Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Yang, writing for Jurist News, reports that the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled on Friday, November 25, that the province of
British Columbia (BC) may bring a class action on behalf of
multiple governments in Canada for harm caused by opioids.
Faced with a public health crisis caused by the opioid epidemic, BC
enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act in
2018. This legislation creates a statutory cause of action against
the manufacturers, distributors and consultations of opioid drugs
for causing or contributing to opioid-related disease, injury or
illness. Specifically, section 11 allows BC to bring a class action
on behalf of other governments across Canada, with provinces having
the option to opt out of the action. BC sought certification of the
action as a class proceeding with itself as the representative
plaintiff and a class consisting of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments and agencies that paid healthcare,
pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids.
The pharmacy and drug marker defendants argued section 11 was
outside of the BC government's jurisdiction, arguing that this
class action framework would enable BC to take control over the
substantive civil rights of other provincial governments. By
binding those governments to its decisions, section 11 would
infringe on their litigation autonomy and violate their sovereignty
to enact potentially contradictory laws.
The court found that section 11 is purely a procedural mechanism to
facilitate a process in which the substantive claims of
extraterritorial governments may be litigated. Therefore, this
multi-crown litigation provision falls under the province's
authority to legislate matters concerning the administration of
justice in the province. By choosing to opt-in to this procedural
mechanism, a government's choice to litigate in a different
province and subject itself to the procedural rules of that
province does not violate any constitutional principle.
Writing for the majority, Justice Karakatsanis stated the court
recognizes that legislative overlap is inevitable when it comes to
national issues like the opioid epidemic. Invoking the principle of
intergovernmental cooperation, the Court said governments are free
to legislate in areas that overlap for their own valid purposes.
The court wrote:
In an increasingly complex modern world, where governments assume
greater regulatory roles in multifaceted areas, overlapping
jurisdictional boundaries, there is a greater need for cooperation
between governments and between courts that cross those borders.
National class actions, and in particular multi-Crown class
actions, ensure that justice is not blocked by provincial borders.
The opioid epidemic is a stark example of a crisis that should
attract cooperation and comity.
The ruling means that all provinces, territories, and the federal
government can remain in the single class-action lawsuit launched
in BC. The class action is currently awaiting certification. If
certified, the case would move forward as a civil trial at the BC
Supreme Court.
This is the second piece of healthcare cost recovery legislation
enacted by the BC government. The province was also the first
province to bring an action against tobacco companies for damages
over healthcare costs related to smoking, setting the example for
other provinces to follow suit. In 2019, the tobacco companies
sought creditors' protection and entered into closed-door
negotiations for a settlement with the provinces. In October 2024,
the tobacco companies proposed $32.5 billion to settle all legal
claims in Canada. [GN]
BTR TIRES: Nielsen Files Employment Suit in Cal. Super.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against BTR Tires LLC. The case is
captioned as Brandon Nielsen, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BTR Tires LLC, a California limited
liability Company, et al., Case No. CVCS24-0002443 (Cal. Super.,
Sutter Cty., Oct. 8, 2024).
The suit is brought over Defendant's alleged employment law
violation.
A case conference has been scheduled for April 14, 2025.
BTR Tires LLC is a California limited liability company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
BURNING MAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Pelaez Claims
------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER PELAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BURNING MAN PROJECT, Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-24658-RKA (S.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2024) seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Burning Man Project is an organization that annually plans,
manages, and builds Burning Man on the dry lake of the Black Rock
Desert in northwestern Nevada. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (813) 340-8838
Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
CAL DEL: Class Action Settlement in Orin Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDSAY ORIN, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public, v. CAL. DEL. U.S.A. INC., Case No.
2:23-cv-03404-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
granting final approval of class action settlement:
-- The Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and
Costs and
Class Representative's Enhancement Payment is granted as set
forth
in this Order.
-- The court grants final approval of the parties' Settlement
Agreement. The court finds that the Settlement Agreement is
fair,
adequate and reasonable, appears to be the product of
arm's-length
and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the class
fairly. The parties are ordered to perform their obligations
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and this
Order.
-- The Plaintiff Lindsay Orin shall be paid a service payment of
$5,000.00 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement
and this Order.
-- Class counsel shall be paid $62,500.00 in attorney's fees, and
$9,982.36 in costs in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement
Agreement and this Order.
-- ILYM shall be paid its fees and expenses in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement and this Order.
-- The LWDA shall be paid $7,500.00 pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
The parties have defined the settlement class as "all current and
former non-exempt employees of Defendant employed in California at
any time during the Class Period."
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gshtw at no extra
charge.[CC]
CARLE FOUNDATION: Fails to Pay Wages During Military Leave
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK POLIZZI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CARLE FOUNDATION dba CARLE
HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12230 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26,
3034) is a class action under the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant failed
to pay the Plaintiff compensation or paid leave during his
short-term military leave.
The USERRA requires that military servicemembers who take leaves of
absence from their civilian employers to perform qualified military
service be treated no less favorably than employees who take other
comparable forms of leave that an employer provides.
Accordingly, servicemember employees who take military leave must
receive the same "rights and benefits" during such military leave
as employees who take comparable leaves, such as for jury duty,
illness, or the death of a family member, says the suit.
The Carle Foundation operates as a non-profit organization. The
Organization offers medical and surgical hospital services such as
bariatric, breast imaging, dermatology, sport medicine, optometry,
orthopaedics, pediatrics, radiology, and wound healing services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
Seth McCormick, Esq.
CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
650 Warrenville Road, Suite 100
Lisle, IL 60532
Telephone: (312) 858-3239
Email: bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
rob.harrer@cclc-law.com
seth@cclc-law.com
- and -
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
Christina M. Le, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Email: gdanas@clarksonlawfirm.com
cle@clarksonlawfirm.com
- and -
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, PC
9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (866) 276-7637
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ZIMMERMAN, ASIA
FOWLER, AND LILLIAN MENA, individually and as representatives of a
Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 403(B) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. CEDARS-SINAI
MEDICAL CENTER, THE CEDARS-SINAI BOARD OF DIRECTORS' PENSION
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE CEDARS-SINAI DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
RETIREMENT PLANS' COMMITTEE, ANDY ORTIZ, DEBRA LEE, ERIC HOLOMAN,
JOSHUA LOBEL, LESLIE VERMUT, RICHARD SINAIKO, STEVEN ROMICK, MARK
RAPAPORT, JAMES NATHAN, DAVID WRIGLEY, JEFF SMITH, DAVID MARSHALL,
PASY WANG, BRYAN CROFT and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
5:23-cv-01124-JLS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting their ex parte application for leave to
file a sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, attached as Exhibit A.
The Plaintiffs' reply attached supplemental declarations containing
new evidence, not available to Defendants when they filed their
opposition to the motion for class certification.
Because Plaintiffs raised this information for the first time on
reply, Defendants had no previous opportunity to respond.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, set to
be heard on December 6, 2024.
The Defendants opposed the motion, and Plaintiffs replied. In their
reply, Plaintiffs relied on new evidence and the supplemental
declarations of Christina Humphrey and Asia Fowler.
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is a non-profit, tertiary, 915-bed
teaching hospital and multi-specialty academic health science
center.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gUdJGA at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C.
1117 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 618-2924
Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com
- and -
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
The Defendants are represented by:
C. Beatrice Nunez-Bellamy, Esq.
Lindsay Samuel, Esq.
Richard J. Birmingham, Esq.
Christine Hawkins, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800
Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
E-mail: beatricenunezbellamy@dwt.com
lindsaysamuel@dwt.com
richbirmingham@dwt.com
christinehawkins@dwt.com
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL: Removes Isaacs Suit to W.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of EDWARD ISAACS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY d/b/a ATRIUM HEALTH,
Defendant, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of North Carolina, County of Mecklenburg County
(Case No. 24-CVS-044102) to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on Nov. 22, 2024.
The clerk of court for the Western District of North Carolina
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01025. The case is assigned to Judge
Kenneth D. Bell and referred to Magistrate David Keesler.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, doing business as
Atrium Health, operates as a hospital. The Hospital offers home
health care, hospice and palliative care, nursing, and other
related services. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
Charlotte, NC 28246
Telephone: (704) 377-2536
Email: jkrisko@robinsonbradshaw.com
- and -
Preetha Suresh Rini, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
434 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1600
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 239-2600
Email: prini@robinsonbradshaw.com
CLEARLINK INSURANCE: Julian Allowed Leave to File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES JULIAN, v. CLEARLINK
INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02293-KHV-RES (D. Kan.),
the Hon. Judge Rachel Schwartz entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
-- The Plaintiff's consent motion for leave to amend complaint is
also granted.
-- On or before Dec. 3, 2024, the Plaintiff shall file ECF No.
34-1
as a separate docket entry in this case, with one required
change.
-- For the clarity of the docket, ECF No. 34-1 shall be retitled
as the Second Amended Complaint, rather than the Third Amended
Complaint.
While Plaintiff's Motion may have been delayed, because of the
unique procedural posture of this case, the Court does not find
that it is unduly delayed, requiring the denial of Plaintiff's
motion for leave.
While Defendant opposes Plaintiff's request to add class claims,
the Defendant consents to Plaintiff's request to add these two new
Defendants. Given that Rule 15(a)(2) allows Plaintiff to amend with
Defendant's written consent, the Court grants the Consent Motion as
unopposed.
On July 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint. Highly
summarized, this action involves claims for alleged violations of
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the
TCPA by authorizing and directing "telemarketing calls" from "Sept.
22, 2023 to June 5, 2024."
Clearlink specializes in providing home and auto insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PjRQcF at no extra
charge.[CC]
COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Action Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
Comenity Bank customer filed a class action lawsuit against the
company.
-- Why: The plaintiff alleges the financial institution
improperly obtained her credit report following the discharge of
her debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy,
-- Where: The class action was filed in an Indiana federal
court.
A consumer hit Comenity Bank with a class action lawsuit alleging
the financial institution improperly obtained her credit report
following the discharge of her debts in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and
has done it to others, too.
Plaintiff Kimberly Jo Devish filed the class action complaint
against Comenity Bank Nov. 22 in an Indiana federal court, alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The FCRA is designed to ensure consumer reporting agencies follow
procedures that respect confidentiality, accuracy and fair use of
credit information, the class action lawsuit states. According to
Devish, Comenity Bank violated these principles by pulling her
credit report on Feb. 15, 2024, months after she discharged her
debts through bankruptcy.
"Defendant had no collection purpose and no account review purpose
because the account no longer existed," the class action states.
The lawsuit also alleges Comenity's actions are part of a broader
"pattern and practice" of obtaining credit reports from individuals
who completed bankruptcy discharges.
Comenity collected debts despite bankruptcy, class action alleges
Devish says her Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing resulted in the
discharge of all debts owed to Comenity Bank
Court filings state Comenity received electronic notice of the
bankruptcy and discharge, rendering any subsequent collection or
account review activity unwarranted, the class action says.
Despite this, the bank allegedly accessed her Experian credit
report without a permissible purpose, violating FCRA provisions
that restrict such actions, according to the lawsuit.
Devish says she wants to represent anyone whose credit reports
Comenity allegedly accessed without permissible purpose following
bankruptcy discharges over the past two years.
She's seeking damages, fees and costs on behalf of about 40 class
members.
In other banking news, a consumer recently filed a class action
lawsuit against Flagstar Bank, accusing it of deceptive practices
involving certificate of deposit accounts.
The plaintiff is represented by Joshua D. Arisohn and Julian C.
Diamond at Bursor & Fisher P.A.
The Comenity Bank class action lawsuit is Kimberly Jo Devish v.
Comenity Bank, Case No. 1:24-cv-02083-JMS-MKK in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana. [GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Status Conference in Duncan Set for Jan. 8, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE DUNCAN, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60231-MD (S.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order setting
status conference as follows:
1. This matter is set for a Status Conference on Wednesday, Jan.
8,
2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 205C at the U.S.
Courthouse,
299 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.
The
parties shall be prepared to address the above-referenced
Motion and scheduling matters.
2. The Dec. 2, 2024, class certification deadline, set forth in
the
Court's Order Granting Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling
Order,
is stayed until further order of the Court.
Costco owns and operates a chain of membership warehouses.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wUFvRd at no extra
charge.[CC]
CREDIT SUISSE: Bid to File memorandum Under Seal OK'd
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of
Baltimore, et al., v. Credit Suisse AG, et al., Case No.
11-cv-05450 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Naomi Buchwald entered an
order granting request for permission to file under seal the
memorandum of law and accompanying materials in support of both
(1) Credit Suisse, NatWest, and UBS’s opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Oct. 4, 2024, motion for class certification;
and
(2) Bank of America and JPMorgan's motion for class
decertification
The Defendants' Class Certification Briefing contains a substantial
amount of material that has been designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and Protective
Order, dated May 12, 2016, including commercially sensitive
business information of Defendants.
If such information were to be made publicly available, Defendants
and others could be disadvantaged.
Credit Suisse is a global investment bank and financial services
firm founded and based in Switzerland.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iniR0e at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2395
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: jbell@gibsondunn.com
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due April 18, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. CROSSCOUNTRY
MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01064-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge John Holcomb entered an order setting the following initial
case schedule:
-- Deadline to file Class Certification April 18, 2025
Motion:
-- Deadline to file Opposition May 16, 2025
Class Certification Motion:
-- Deadline to file Reply in Support June 6, 2025
of Class Certification Motion:
-- Hearing on Class Certification Motion: June 25, 202
The Plaintiff Sapan filed this putative class action lawsuit
against
CrossCountry for alleged violations of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
In Oct. 2024, the Court conducted a Scheduling Conference during
which CrossCountry Mortgage raised the possibility of filing an
early motion for summary judgment. Also, the parties indicated that
they might agree on a schedule for phased discovery that would
accommodate such an early motion.
Two weeks later, the parties filed a Joint Status Report in which
they indicated that they could not agree on that schedule.
CrossCountry Mortgage is a nationwide lender that offers a variety
of home loan options and home financing solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHKKrm at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAVID TAX LAW: Iverson Bid to Compel Discovery Partly OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY R. IVERSON, et al.,
v. J. DAVID TAX LAW, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00718-jdp (W.D. Wis.),
the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery, is granted in part
and
denied in part in accordance with this opinion.
2. Defendant shall supplement its production of requested
documents
in line with this opinion within two weeks of the date of
this
order.
3. The parties bear their own costs in litigating this motion.
Here, defendant has offered only general assertions of privilege.
Consequently, it cannot carry its burden to establish the existence
of any applicable privilege. The court will overrule defendant’s
blanket assertions of privilege but will allow defendant to assert
more particularized privilege claims as discovery progresses
The court does not need to reach the privilege or confidentiality
concerns because it finds plaintiffs have failed to explain how the
requested information would inform the class certification inquiry
on the two remaining claims.
On reply, plaintiffs argue that the invoices and accounting details
are "relevant to the malpractice issues," but this is untimely
raised and barely explained. It is not clear how this accounting
information would answer either of the two common questions or
factor into any of the other Rule 23 requirements. Without a
clearer explanation, the court will not compel defendant to produce
this information for clients other than plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs are Wisconsin residents who engaged defendant, a tax
law firm in Florida, to represent them in tax-related proceedings.
The Plaintiffs allege that defendant charged unreasonable and
illegal fees, committed malpractice, and engaged in unfair trade
practices.
J David Tax Law is a tax law firm that provides customized,
affordable tax solutions for clients nationwide.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uXtwWD at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMIRATES: Plaintiffs' Must File Class Cert Bid by March 31, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH, et al., v.
Emirates, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 6,
2021), Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting
motion for extension of time.
-- All deadlines are extended by two weeks.
-- The Defendants shall produce the remainder of the ESI discovery
by
Dec. 13, 2024.
-- The Plaintiffs shall complete depositions of Defendants'
corporate
representatives by Jan. 29, 2025.
-- All fact discovery shall be completed by March 24, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification is
March
31, 2025.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.).[CC]
ENZO BIOCHEM: To Settle Consolidated Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Enzo Biochem, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year
ended July 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 29, 2024, that in the Eastern District of New
York twenty putative class actions have been consolidated alleging
various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident (No.
2:23-cv-04282). An agreement in principle to settle the case has
been reached and an agreement should be formalized before the end
of the 2024 calendar year.
Interim lead counsel has been appointed and filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint on November 13, 2023. The complaint seeks to
certify a federal class as well as several state subclasses.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint brought various statutory and
common law claims including negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the
New York's General Business Law § 349, Invasion of Privacy,
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, and
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Enzo Biochem, Inc.
filed its motion to dismiss on April 8, 2024. Plaintiffs filed
their Opposition on May 23, 2024 and its Reply was filed on May 30,
2024.
Enzo Biochem, Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of a portfolio
of thousands of antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals,
and proteins based in New York.
EPOCH EVERLASTING: Jackson-Jones Case Remain Stayed, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIENE JACKSON-JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others situated, v. EPOCH
EVERLASTING PLAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and
AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-02567-ODW-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis Wright
entered an order that the case is and shall remain stayed in its
entirety -- including but not limited to all deadlines in the
operative scheduling order, all fact and expert discovery, and all
summary judgment and trial proceedings -- pending the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals' resolution of Defendants' appeal of this Court's
class certification order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f).
The Court entered an order that the parties shall submit a joint
status report within 14 days of the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of
the mandate.
Epoch is a toy company that offers entertaining products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cFqvzS at no extra
charge.[CC]
EQT CORP: Fact Discovery in Ross Suit Due April 30, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD A. ROSS and
FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. EQT CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION
COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and
VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II, LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-WSS (W.D.
Pa.), Hon. Judge William Stickman IV entered a proposed final case
management order as follows:
-- Expert reports relating to class certification are to be served
by
March 10,2025.
-- Rebuttal reports relating to class certification are to be
served
by April 9, 2025.
-- Expert depositions relating to class certification must be
completed by April 40, 2025.
-- Fact and expert discovery relating to class certification shall
close on April 30, 2025.
EQT is an integrated energy company with emphasis on Appalachian
area natural gas production, gathering, and transmission.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K4c897 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Pietragallo, II, Esq.
P. Brennan Hart, Esq.
Matthew R. Barnes, Esq.
PIETRAGALLO GORDON ALFANO
BOSICK RASPANTI LLP
One Oxford Centre, 38th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 263-2000
E-mail: WP@pietragallo.com
PBHP@pietragallo.com
MRBP@pietragallo.com
- and -
Scott M. Hare, Esq.
Anthony T. Gestrich, Esq.
RAINES FELDMAN LITTRELL, LLP
11 Stanwix St., Suite 1100
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 899-6460
E-mail: Share@raineslaw.com
AGestrich@raineslaw.com
- and -
Matthew T. Logue, Esq.
QUINN LOGUE LLC
200 First Avenue, Third Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 765-3800
E-mail: Matt@mattlogue.com
- and -
Alex J. Dravillas, Esq.
KELLER POSTMAN LLC
150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
Chicago, IL 60606
The Defendants are represented by:
James L. ROckney, Esq.
Justin H. Werner, Esq.
Allison L. Ebeck, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
2225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-3131
Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
E-mail: JRockney@reedsmith.com
JWerner@reedsmith.com
AEbeck@reedsmith.com
ETZ HAYIM: Class Settlement in Cimino Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH CIMINO and CONOR
MANCONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. ETZ HAYIM HOLDINGS, S.P.C., d/b/a LAZARUS NATURALS, Case No.
3:23-cv-01185-JR (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Jolie Russo entered an
order granting final approval of class action settlement:
-- The Court approves the Release provided in Section 6 of the
Settlement Agreement and orders that, as of the Effective Date,
the Released Claims will be released by the Releasing Parties
as
to Released Parties.
-- The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims of the Settlement
Class against ETZ in the Action, without costs and fees except
as
explicitly provided for in the Settlement Agreement.
-- On September 11, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees Award,
Expense
Reimbursement, and Service Awards. The Court awarded Class
Counsel $75,000 in attorneys' fees and $17,491.35 in expenses,
as
well as service awards of $5,000 to each of the Class
Representatives, totaling $10,000.
-- The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Deborah
Cimino and Conor Mancone as the Class Representatives of the
Class.
-- The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Class
Counsel as provided in the Preliminary Approval Order,
appointing
Mason A. Barney and Tyler J. Bean of Siri & Glimstad LLP.
-- The Court certifies the following Settlement Class for
settlement
purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject
to
the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement
Agreement:
"All persons in the United States whose information may have
been impacted in the Data Incident, including persons to whom
ETZ mailed a notification that their information may have
been
impacted in the Data Incident."
The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) ETZ and its
respective officers and directors; (ii) all members of the
Settlement Class who timely and validly request exclusion
from
the Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge and Magistrate Judge
assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and
(iv)
any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction
to
be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding,
or
abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to
any
such charge.
Etz operates in the pharmaceutical & medicine manufacturing
industry.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SLxgbN at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVOLVE BANK: Bennett Seeks to Appoint Watson as Liaison Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bennett v. Evolve Bank &
Trust (RE EVOLVE BANK & TRUST CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY LITIGATION),
Case No. 2:24-cv-02886-SHL-cgc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order under Rule 23(g)(3) to appoint J. Gerard
Stranch, IV as Chair and Jeff Ostrow, Gary Klinger, Linda Nussbaum,
James Pizzirusso, and Lynn Toops as Members of Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee.
-- The Plaintiffs also request that the Court name Frank Watson as
Liaison Counsel; or
-- The Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to Rule 23(g)(3) to
appoint
a Plaintiffs' Executive Committee with J. Gerard Stranch, IV of
Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC ("SJG") as Lead Counsel and
Gary
Klinger, Linda Nussbaum, Jeff Ostrow, James Pizzirusso, Scott
Poynter and Lynn Toops as Members of the Executive Committee
and
Frank Watson of Watson Burns, PLLC as Liaison Counsel.
The suit arises from the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiffs' and
the millions of proposed Class Members' personally identifiable
information during a February 2024 cyberattack that the Defendant
became aware of in May 2024.
Evolve Bank accepts deposits, makes loans, and provides mortgage
solutions, card facilities, and online banking services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TTk5Ab at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and –
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and –
Linda Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C.
1133 Avenues of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9102
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and –
James Pizzirusso, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
- and –
Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
WATSON BURNS, PLLC
253 Adams Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 529-7996
E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
- and –
Scott Poynter, Esq.
POYNTER LAW GROUP
4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard
Little Rock, AR 72207
Telephone: (501) 812-3943
E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com
EXRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Calgary-based electric vehicle (EV) tech firm Exro Technologies is
the target of a potential class-action lawsuit from a group of
shareholders alleging the company misrepresented revenue
projections related to its acquisition of SEA Electric earlier this
year.
On Nov. 27, 2024, Ontario resident Allan Crosier filed a statement
of claim in the Court of the King's Bench of Alberta on behalf of
investors who purchased Exro securities between Jan. 30 and Nov.
30, 2024.
The lawsuit lists Exro, along with its CEO Sue Ozdemir and chairman
Rodney Copes, as defendants. The defendants also includes the
underwriters of the $55 million in financings Exro raised this
year: Canaccord Genuity Corp., Eight Capital, National Bank
Financial Inc., ATB Securities Inc., Stifel Nicolaus Canada Inc.,
Roth Canada Inc., and AGP Canada Investments ULC.
When Exro announced the $332-million CAD merger with SEA Electric
in January, it claimed the combined company would have a "strong
order book" and generate over $200 million CAD in revenue for the
year. The plaintiff said there was "no justification for the
representations" provided at the time.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendants "knew or ought to have
known that the merger agreement would not enhance the results of
Exro Technologies' operations to achieve over $200 million of
revenue in 2024."
According to the statement of claim, earlier this month, Exro
revised its 2024 revenue projection to $28 million -- just 14
percent of its original forecast in January. BetaKit has not
corroborated this claim and asked Exro for clarification.
"The defendants' representation that Exro Technologies would
achieve a revenue of over $200 million in 2024 was delusional," the
statement of claim reads.
The plaintiff also alleged that these forecasts were made to
justify two public offerings of its securities this year, which
allowed Exro to raise $55 million.
The plaintiffs' allegations have not been proven in court.
On Nov. 27, Exro released a statement noting it disputes the
allegations and "intends to defend the claim vigorously." The
company did not respond to BetaKit's request for comment before
press time.
Founded in 2014, Exro has developed an adaptive EV traction
inverter that prioritizes power and torque at different speeds. The
company, which trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the
ticker EXRO.
When announcing its merger with SEA Electric, Exro claimed that the
combined company would provide it with "a defined path to
profitability" within 12 months of closing the transaction.
However, filings obtained by BetaKit indicate the company
experienced a $225.95-million CAD net loss for the three months
ending on Sept. 30, 2024, which included $211-million CAD
"impairment expense." It attributed the loss to
slower-than-expected EV market adoption, a reassessment of SEA
Electric's assets, and high operating costs. The firm recorded
roughly $16 million CAD in revenue in the first nine months of the
year.
At press time, Exro's stock traded at 16 cents per share on the
TSX, down almost 90 percent from its 2024 peak of $1.33 CAD in
January. [GN]
FALCON EQUITY: $11.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Jan. 21
--------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
PAUL BERGER REVOCABLE TRUST
Plaintiff,
v.
FALCON EQUITY INVESTORS LLC, EAGLE FALCON JV CO LLC, ALAN G.
MNUCHIN, JEFF SAGANSKY, EDGAR BRONFMAN, JR., KAREN FINERMAN,
MICHAEL RONEN, AND SAIF RAHMAN, Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
TO:
ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD FALCON CAPITAL ACQUISITION CORP.
("FCAC") CLASS A COMMON STOCK OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING JUNE 25, 2021, AND AS OF THE REDEMPTION DEADLINE, HAD THE
RIGHT TO, BUT DID NOT, EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO REDEEM SOME OR ALL
SHARES OF SUCH STOCK, EXCLUDING ANY EXCLUDED PERSONS (THE "CLASS"
OR "CLASS MEMBERS").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT JUNK MAIL, AN
ADVERTISEMENT, OR SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR
SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF
CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") POSTMARKED, SUBMITTED
ONLINE, OR RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 10, 2025.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 21,
2025, at 9:15 a.m. EST before the Honorable J. Travis Laster, Vice
Chancellor, at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the action pending in the Delaware
Court of Chancery styled as Paul Berger Revocable Trust v. Falcon
Equity Investors LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0820-JTL (the "Action")
as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
Compromise, and Release dated November 6, 2024 ("Stipulation")[1]
for $11,500,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered with prejudice; (3) to award
Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of: (I) Proposed
Settlement and Plan of Allocation; (II) Settlement Hearing; and
(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amount;
and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate.
This Summary Notice relates to a proposed settlement of claims in a
pending class action brought by a purported holder of FCAC Class A
common stock. The Action alleges that Defendants violated
applicable law by breaching their fiduciary duties and impairing
FCAC stockholders' redemption and voting rights, including through
proxy solicitation materials containing false and misleading
misrepresentations and omissions, resulting in damages to Class
Members. Defendants deny each and every claim and contention
alleged in the Action and deny any misconduct or wrongdoing
whatsoever.
IF YOU HELD FCAC CLASS A COMMON STOCK IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING JUNE
25, 2021, AND HAD THE RIGHT TO, BUT DID NOT, EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO
REDEEM SOME OR ALL OF SUCH STOCK, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION.
If you are a member of the Class, you must establish your rights by
submitting a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") by
mail (postmarked or received no later than February 10, 2025) or
electronically (no later than February 10, 2025). Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by February 10, 2025, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving your full pro rata
share of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of the
Action. If you are a member of the Class, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.SharecareStockholderSettlement.com, or by
writing to:
Sharecare Stockholder Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170995
Milwaukee, WI 53217
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
Christine M. Mackintosh
123 Justison Street
7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
AWARD TO PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST
BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL AND
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY DECEMBER 27, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
DATED: November 22, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE
1 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.SharecareStockholderSettlement.com. All capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined shall have the same meaning as
ascribed to them in the Stipulation.
FLATIRON MEDIA: Fact Discovery Deadline Extended to Feb. 5, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carrodine et al., v.
Flatiron Media LLC et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-09660-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order that the fact
discovery deadline is extended, but only to Feb. 5, 2025.
-- The parties shall mediate the case within thirty days of the
close
of fact discovery (and shall promptly notify the mediator or
mediation office, as appropriate, of that deadline.)
-- The pretrial conference currently scheduled for Dec. 4, 2024,
is
adjourned to Feb. 12, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the
Court
will discuss with the parties all future deadlines, including a
deadline for any motion for class certification.
-- The parties are cautioned that the Court will not tolerate foot
dragging or failures to comply with the parties' obligations
under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Orders.
Flatiron is a full-service customer acquisition service provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=87Mym1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue – Suite 1300
Clayton (St. Louis), MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 863-5700
Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
The Defendants are represented by:
Alice J. Cunningham, Esq.
Derek Newman, Esq.
FLOYD INC: Race Sues Over Misleading Discount Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS RACE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FLOYD, INC.; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-08529 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges violation of
the California's False Advertising Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants markets and sells a
variety of home furnishings (the "Products") directly to consumers.
Like many businesses, the Defendants advertises "discounts" or
"sales," during which the prices for its Products are purportedly
reduced from higher, regular prices (i.e., "Reference Prices").
However, these Reference Prices are fictitious, rendering the
Defendants' "sales" and advertised "discounts" illusory.
Defendant's Products are always advertised with discounts off
higher Reference Prices, so no consumer ever actually pays the
References Prices from the Defendants represents they are
discounted.
The Defendants' Products have never actually been sold at their
advertised Reference Prices. As a result, customers never actually
received the advertised discounts because the discounted prices
were just the Defendants' regular prices, says the suit.
Floyd Inc. operates as an online furniture company. The Company
designs and manufactures furniture for city living. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot J. Siegel, Esq.
Julian Burns King, Esq.
Brent R. Boos, Esq.
KING & SIEGEL LLP
724 South Spring Street, Suite 201
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 465-4802
Facsimile: (213) 465-4803
Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com
julian@kingsiegel.com
brent@kingsiegel.com
GOODRX HOLDINGS: C&H Pharma Balks at Prescription Discount Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------------
C&H PHARMACY INC., DBA HUNNINGTON PHARMACY; PROPST DISCOUNT DRUGS,
INC.; REEVES DRUG STORE; and STAR DISCOUNT PHARMACY, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; GOODRX INC.; CVS CAREMARK
CORPORATION; EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00498-MSM-LDA (D.R.I., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges violation
of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices paid to pharmacies for
reimbursement of prescription drug claims. Defendants are
prescription discount card aggregator, and the largest pharmacy
benefit managers ("PBMs") in the United States.
The Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged
in a contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain
trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The contract, combination,
or conspiracy consisted of an agreement among the Defendants and
their co-conspirators to fix, reduce, stabilize, or maintain prices
and overall reimbursements for dispensing prescription generic
drugs paid to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class at
artificially low levels.
The Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured and will
continue to be injured in the form of under-reimbursement for
prescription generic drugs, says the suit.
GoodRx Holdings, Inc. operates a digital healthcare platform. The
Company develops tele-medicine platform and a free-to-use website
to access quality healthcare at a reasonable price. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
MCINTYRE TATE LLP
50 Park Row West Suite 109
Providence, RI 02903
Telephone: (401) 351-7700
Email: sprignano@mcintyretate.com
- and -
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
Email: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
GOOGLE LLC: Phi Finney Law Firm Probes Anticompetitive Conduct
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Brief reports that Melbourne-based class action law firm
Phi Finney McDonald has announced it is investigating a possible
class action against Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct
linked to digital advertising.
The context: The investigation is the second of its kind and comes
just days after Maurice Blackburn unveiled its own probe into the
tech giant for a possible class action lawsuit. Once again, legal
teams from both law firms are chasing similar legal action, after
collaborating earlier this year in class actions against Apple and
Google that were linked to Fortnite developer Epic Games' lawsuits
against the companies.
Phi Finney McDonald has said the class action will seek
compensation for advertisers, publishers and others who have
suffered loss as a result of Google's alleged anti-competitive
conduct.
What they said: In a media statement announcing the investigation,
Joel Phibbs, principal lawyer at Phi Finney McDonald said: "Imagine
if the ASX owned and controlled the majority of brokerages buying
and selling securities on that exchange, so that it could
preference transactions that benefit its own interests above those
of the people wanting to trade".
"Regulation of the ad tech space has not kept up with the rapid
growth and dominance of Google, and, until recent moves by
regulators and class action lawyers globally, Google has exploited
its position of dominance to the detriment of publishers and
advertisers unchecked. This has flow on effects for the resources
available to and the viability of important publishers, like news
services," Phibbs said.
“Commentators have also suggested that Google's conduct flows
directly through to inflationary pressures on the costs of goods
and services borne by everyday Australians as a result of
advertisers paying more to advertise their products than they would
in a world in which healthy competition in online advertising
exists." [GN]
GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Carrots
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a New
York man has filed a class action lawsuit against Grimmway Farms.
-- Why: The plaintiff alleges the company deceptively marketed
and sold organic carrots contaminated with dangerous strains of E.
coli.
-- Where: The carrots E. coli class action was filed in a New
York federal court.
A New York man has filed a class action lawsuit against Grimmway
Farms alleging the company deceptively marketed and sold organic
carrots contaminated with dangerous strains of E. coli.
Plaintiff Wayne Catalano filed the carrots class action complaint
against Grimmway Enterprises Inc. on Nov. 19 in a New York federal
court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.
The lawsuit comes as Grimmway Farms recalls carrots across the
United States, Canada and Puerto Rico as U.S. food safety watchdogs
investigate a fatal outbreak of E. coli infections.
According to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Grimmway
Farms recalled the carrots amid an investigation into illnesses in
a multistate outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli O121:H19
infections linked to the company's organic whole and baby carrots.
As of Nov. 17, the FDA said it recorded 39 total illnesses, 15
hospitalizations and one death related to the outbreak.
The recalled carrots, sold under brands such as Trader Joe's,
Wegmans, and Whole Foods, were available at retail stores across
the U.S. from Aug. 14 to Oct. 23, 2024, the lawsuit says. Baby
carrots with specific "best-if-used-by" dates through Nov. 7, 2024,
were also included. The lawsuit claims Grimmway failed to disclose
the contamination on its packaging or in its advertising, leaving
consumers unaware of the potential health risks.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, E.
coli can cause severe gastrointestinal illness, with young
children, older adults, and those with weakened immune systems at
the highest risk of serious infection. Catalano alleges that
Grimmway's omission of this critical information misled consumers
into purchasing a product that "had no value" due to its safety
risks.
Failed recall endangers consumers, lawsuit alleges
The lawsuit criticizes Grimmway's recall efforts, asserting that
the recall failed to protect consumers adequately and that a class
action lawsuit is necessary to hold the company accountable.
"Reasonable consumers expect produce products they purchase to be
free from harmful bacteria, especially those known to cause severe
disease," the carrots class action lawsuit says.
As a result, Catalano is looking to represent anyone in the United
States who bought the recalled carrots. He's suing for violations
of New York's consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, and
other claims, and is seeking certification of the class action,
damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
The plaintiff in the carrots E. coli lawsuit is represented by
Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Jason P. Sultzer and Daniel
Markowitz of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC, Nick Suciu III, Russell M.
Busch and Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC.
The Carrots E. coli class action lawsuit is Wayne Catalano v.
Grimmway Enterprises Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-08817 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses MSP Recovery Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SERIES 15-09-321, a
designated series of MSP Recovery Series, LLC, Delaware Entity v.
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC ET AL., Case No.
3:23-cv-01342-VAB (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Victor Bolden entered
an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
-- The Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack
of
jurisdiction, but without leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close this case.
Because HFSG is merely a holding company that does not issue
insurance, it does not administer a "primary plan" or have primary
payer obligations under the MSP Act, and thus may not be sued to
recover claims that its subsidiaries allegedly owe to MSP's MAO
Assignor. Accordingly, MSP's claims against HFSG must be
dismissed.
The court found that MSP failed to allege a "concrete" or "actual"
injury or an injury fairly traceable to the Defendant, and lacked
standing to bring its exemplar claims, the claims listed in its
exhibit, or the unpled class claims that reply on this theory of
injury and causation.
Hartford Financial provides a range of insurance products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2MTKGR at no extra
charge.[CC]
HCA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Class Cert. in Brevard Due August 15, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as City of Brevard, North
Carolina v. HCA Healthcare, Inc. et al. (MISSION HEALTH ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:22-cv-00114-MR (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Martin Reidinger entered an order granting the Parties' Joint
Motion to the extent that the deadlines in the Initial Scheduling
Order, are amended as follows:
Task New Deadline
Completion of Discovery: March 14,
2025
Retained Expert Report Disclosures:
- Reports from Party w/ Burden May 15, 2025
- Responsive from Party w/o Burden June 16,
2025
Completion of Retained Expert Depositions: July 15,
2025
Motion for Class Certification: Aug. 15,
2025
Responses Due: Sept. 15,
2025
HCA is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zTXCA7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
HOBBY LOBBY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fake Discounts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Nicole Loza and
Lorraine Romero filed a class action lawsuit against Hobby Lobby
Stores Inc.
-- Why: Loza and Romero claim Hobby Lobby deceives consumers by
using never-ending discounts on certain products it sells.
-- Where: The Hobby Lobby discounts class action lawsuit was
filed in California federal court.
Hobby Lobby deceives consumers by routinely advertising significant
never-ending discounts on certain products, a new class action
lawsuit alleges.
Plaintiff's Nicole Loza and Lorraine Romero's class action lawsuit
claims the Hobby Lobby items are not actually sold at a discount,
given their so-called sale price is "just the actual price of the
item."
"Hobby Lobby routinely advertises certain goods to be discounted or
on sale but, in fact and contrary to Hobby Lobby's representations,
such items are always at the purported discounted or sale prices,"
the Hobby Lobby class action claims.
Loza and Romero want to represent a California class of consumers
who bought from a Hobby Lobby in the state a product listed at an
always-discounted price.
Hobby Lobby discounts victimize Californians, class action claims
Loza and Romero argue Hobby Lobby is aware their alleged pricing
scheme is deceptive, due to being subjected to related lawsuits and
enforcement actions in the past, have yet to face pushback in
California.
"Plaintiffs are unaware of any similar enforcement measures taken
in California to cease these unfair and deceptive practices,
leaving Californians exposed to -- and victimized by -- these
practices," the Hobby Lobby discounts class action says.
Loza and Romero claim Hobby Lobby is guilty of unjust enrichment
and violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False
Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary,
statutory, actual and punitive damages for themselves and all class
members.
A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Lowe's Home
Centers LLC earlier this month over claims the home improvement
retailer misleads consumers by advertising certain products at a
perpetual discount.
Have you purchased a product from Hobby Lobby that was advertised
at a permanent discount? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen R. Basser and Samuel M.
Ward of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.
The Hobby Lobby class action lawsuit is Loza, et al. v. Hobby Lobby
Stores Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-07861, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. [GN]
IFIT HEALTH: Class Settlement in Balfour Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT BALFOUR, DON LEE,
KULDEEP SINGH, MATTHEW TEMPLON, and SHELIA VORHEIS, V. iFIT HEALTH
AND FITNESS INC, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:23-cv-00067-CFC
(D. Del.), Hon. Judge Colm Connolly entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement
l. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement
and
all of the terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement.
The
Court finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and in all respects satisfies the requirements of
Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23 and the applicable law.
2. The Court finds the factors recently added to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(e)(2) substantially overlap with the factors the Third
Circuit has enumerated in Girsh and In re Prudential, and
that
each supports final approval of the Settlement.
3. With respect to the proposed Class, this Court has determined
that, for purposes of settlement of the Action only,
Plaintiffs
have satisfied each of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites.
4. The Court reaffirms its appointments of Plaintiffs Scott
Balfour, Don Lee, Kuldeep Singh, Matthew Templon, and Shelia
Vorheis as Class Representatives and Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether
and Sprengel LLP and Sauder Schelkopf LLC as Class Counsel
for
the Class.
5. Consistent with the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
hereby
grants class certification, for the purpose of settlement, to
the following Class:
"All Persons in the United States or its territories who, on
or
before Jan. 23, 2023, purchased a Class Device."
Excluded from the Class are Defendant; any entity in which
the Defendant has a controlling interest or which has a
controlling interest in Defendant; Defendant's legal
representatives, assigns and successors, and all judges who
have
presided over the Action and any member of the judge's
immediate
families.
iFIT Health offers a health and fitness platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pTnZtN at no extra
charge.[CC]
JERSEY FIRESTOP: Court to Junk Covachuela Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORBIN COVACHUELA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-08806-ZNQ-TJB
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Zahid Quraishi will deny the Plaintiff's
motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.
Nothing in the Opinion impacts the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective Action. An appropriate Order will follow, the Court
says.
The Court recognizes that individual differences in total
recoverable amounts are not relevant for determining class
certification, but makes its decision based on the individualized
evidence needed to prove the underlying NJWPL and NJWHL claims, not
that there may be differences in the recoverable amounts for the
putative class members.
Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails commonality and
predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court need not address
superiority or ascertainability.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should certify a class pursuant
to Rule 23 consisting of all individuals who were non-exempt
laborers for Defendants at any time since July 13, 2014, until June
28, 2021.
The Plaintiff brings this putative class action lawsuit on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, alleging violations of
the FLSA, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), the New
Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), and the New Jersey Conscientious
Employee Protection Act ("CEPA").
The Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 13, 2020 to which
the Defendants answered.
The Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on Feb. 19, 2021. On
April 9, 2021, the Hon. Anne Thompson, entered an opinion and order
granting Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
approved Plaintiff's conditions for notice and dissemination under
the FLSA.
Jersey Firestop is a complete full service mechanical insulation
company and certified Firestop contractor.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wQiIm5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHN WETZEL: Court Narrows Claims in Williamson Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BOBBY KENNETH WILLIAMSON,
et al., v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01781-CCC-LT
(M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Conner 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. section 1915(e)(2) and 28 U.S.C. section 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.
The Clerk of Court will be directed to serve the remaining
defendants with copies of Williamson's amended complaint. An
appropriate order shall issue.
This is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 regarding the conditions of confinement in Huntingdon
State Correctional Institution.
Plaintiffs filed their putative class action complaint on September
28, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The case was transferred to this district
on October 30, 2023.
The Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted on May 20, 2024. We reasoned that
class certification was clearly inappropriate because pro se
prisoners cannot represent the interests of other prisoners in a
class action., the Court says.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8IPJkn at no extra
charge.[CC]
JOHNSON CONTROLS: March 2025 Hearing on Bid to Nix Gumm Suit Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International PLC disclosed in its Form 10-Q
Report for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024,
that the Gumm class suit dismissal motion hearing is expected in
March 2025.
In May 2024, stockholders of Johnson Controls, Inc., filed a
putative class action Complaint against Johnson Controls, Inc.,
certain former officers and directors of Johnson Controls, Inc.,
and two related entities (Jagara Merger Sub LLC and Johnson
Controls International plc) in Wisconsin state court relating to
the 2016 merger of Johnson Controls and Tyco (Gumm et al. v.
Molinaroli et al., Case No. 30106, filed May 23, 2024 in the
Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, Wisconsin).
The filing of the state court Complaint follows the dismissal of a
related lawsuit originally filed in federal court in 2016, which
dismissal was affirmed on appeal in November 2023.
The 12-count state court Complaint asserts claims for (1) breach of
fiduciary duty; (2) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty;
(3); unjust enrichment; (4) violations of Wisconsin Business
Corporation Law 180.1101-.1103; (5) breach of JCI's Articles of
Incorporation; (6) conversion; (7) violations of Wisconsin
Securities Act 551.501 and 551.509; (8) breach of covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (9) promissory estoppel; (10) tortious
interference with contract; (11) negligent or intentional
misrepresentation/equitable fraud; and (12) statutory fraud.
On September 13, 2024, defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint.
A hearing on the motion is expected to take place in March 2025.
Johnson Controls International plc, headquartered in Cork, Ireland,
is into products, services, systems and solutions for safety,
comfort and intelligence of spaces of buildings.
JRK PROPERTY: Court Tosses Peebles Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Branda Peebles et al., v.
JRK Property Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-10523-NMG (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel Gorton entered an order that:
1) The motion for class certification of the Plaintiffs, Branda
Peebles and Joshua Berger, the motion for summary judgment of
the Defendant, JKR Property Holdings, and the cross-motion
for
summary judgment of the plaintiffs are all denied without
prejudice.
2) The following questions will be certified to the
Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court:
When a tenant vacates a premises at the end of a lease, under
what circumstances, if any, does charging him for painting,
carpet repair or similar refurbishment constitute a deduction
for "reasonable wear and tear" in violation of M.G.L. c. 186,
section 15B(4)?
Does inclusion of a provision in a lease requiring a tenant
to
have the premises professionally cleaned at the end of the
lease
or to bear the costs of later repairs constitute a violation
of
M.G.L. c. 186, section 15B(4)?
3) The clerk of court will forward this memorandum and order to
the
SJC under the seal of this court and provide any portion of
the
record that the SJC may require.
4) The case will be stayed (and the scheduled jury trial
postponed)
pending receipt of a decision from the SJC in accordance with
this order.
JRK is a Los Angeles based real estate holding and property
management company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=94wFjm at no extra
charge.[CC]
KALEIDA HEALTH: Plaintiffs Must Provide Privilege Log by Dec. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROXANNE CLEARY, et al., v.
KALEIDA HEALTH, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-00026-LJV-JJM (W.D.N.Y.),
Hon. Judge Jeremiah McCarthy entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the parties' motions.
-- Plaintiffs shall provide a privilege log that complies with the
requirements of Local Rule 26(d) on or before Dec. 20, 2024;
-- Defendants shall provide to plaintiffs the documents responsive
to
the request discussed in section B.6. above, or disclose by
Bates
number the documents already produced that are responsive to
this
request, on or before Dec. 20, 2024;
-- Defendants shall serve unredacted copies of the redacted
documents
marked "Non-Responsive," subject to appropriate designation
under
the Confidentiality Order, on or before Dec. 20, 2024;
-- To the extent that any "actuarial valuation" exists and
contains
"assumptions the Plan’s enrolled actuary made in calculating
the
Plan's estimated benefit liabilities," as limited by my Sept.
25,
2023 Decision and Order [58], defendants shall serve any such
"actuarial valuation," or state that no such document(s)
exists,
on or before Dec. 20, 2024;
-- To the extent that defendants have withheld any responsive
documents created post-commencement that are not subject to the
work-product privilege, they must produce them on or before
December 20, 2024. With respect to litigation hold letters,
defendants shall submit these to the court for in camera by
December 13, 2024 for me to determine whether they
“constitute or
contain legal advice and work product”;
-- Defendants shall answer Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
and
10, as modified, on or before December 20, 2024;
-- Plaintiffs may re-serve the Mercer subpoena with Exhibit 1
modified to the extent discussed above; and
-- Plaintiffs may re-serve the Nixon subpoena with Exhibit 1
modified
to the extent discussed above, and, to the extent that any
responsive communications or documents remain subject to the
attorney-client privilege, Nixon may place them on a privilege
log
that complies with Local Rule 26(d). The remaining issues
raised
by the parties' motions, but not identified in their February
12,
2024 letters are deemed resolved pursuant to my February
2, 2024 Text Order and, therefore, denied as moot.
This putative class action alleges various ERISA violations arising
from the July 1999 consolidation of retirement plans for non-union
employees of those hospitals. The Plan was amended in July 1999 to
transform the traditional pension benefit provisions into "cash
balance" provisions.
Kaleida is a not-for-profit healthcare network that manages five
hospitals in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls metropolitan area.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7VMHaD at no extra
charge.[CC]
LA ROSA HOLDINGS: Palmer National Class Suit Pending in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
La Rosa Holdings 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 19, 2024, that the
Palmer national class suit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division.
On January 3, 2024, Ms. Sarah Palmer filed a putative national
class action complaint against La Rosa Realty, LLC in the United
States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division. Ms. Palmer alleges that she received two (2) brief
pre-recorded calls one week apart to her cell phone from La Rosa
Realty, LLC presenting her an employment opportunity as a real
estate agent.
Ms. Palmer seeks an undisclosed amount of monetary damages from La
Rosa Realty, LLC for the alleged would-be injurious, isolated and
opportunistic employment gestures to her through a purported
nationwide class action.
Ms. Palmer claims that the defendant violated her privacy, annoyed
and harassed her, constituted a nuisance, and occupied her
telephone line.
On March 12, 2024 La Rosa Realty, LLC filed a motion to dismiss the
case with prejudice, which is still pending.
La Rosa Holdings Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, specializes in providing real estate
services platform integrating residential brokerage, mortgage,
title, and insurance. La Rosa Holdings serves clients in the State
of Florida.
LAMB WESTON: King Kullen Sues Over Frozen Potato Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------
KING KULLEN GROCERY CO., INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.;
LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.;
LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA,
INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12076 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 22, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the action is a
price-fixing case against the four dominant processors of frozen
French fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato
products ("Frozen Potato Products") sold in the United States.
Together, they control 97% or more of the $68-billion-per-year
Frozen Potato Products market.
The Defendants conspired to fix the prices of their Frozen Potato
Products above competitive levels. Defendants affected this
price-fixing conspiracy through implementation of lockstep price
increases that allowed them to realize unprecedented margins. This
conspiracy has continued, unabated, to the present. Defendants have
been able to increase the price of their Frozen Potato Products
even after their input costs significantly declined.
The Defendants were able to implement lockstep price increases and
collectively raise prices because their industry is structurally
susceptible to collusion. The Frozen Potato Products Market
features highly concentrated sellers, high entry barriers,
fragmented buyers, repetitive purchases, inelastic demand, and
opportunities to collude through common co-packing arrangements,
trade association events, and mechanisms to exchange market share
and likely other information enabling Defendants to implement and
monitor their conspiracy, says the suit.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, produces and supplies frozen
potato products. Lamb Weston Holdings offers fries, oven roasted
potatoes, puffs, chips, slices, and prepared potato products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
Anthony E. Maneiro, Esq.
Cormac C. Broeg, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 550
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 767-5180
Email: afata@kmllp.com
amaneiro@kmllp.com
cbroeg@kmllp.com
- and -
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 834-2044
Email: bgralewski@kmllp.com
LANE BRYANT: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. LANE BRYANT BRANDS OPCO LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09198
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.lanebryant.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Ponte Button-Front
Jacket for a gift and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation,
the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
The Defendant provides women's apparel and intimates.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
LITTLE FALLS, NJ: To Join Class Suit Over Housing Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriella Dragone, writing for Tapinto Wayne, reports that Little
Falls officials discussed the increasing challenge of meeting the
state's affordable housing obligations with Mayor James Damiano
describing the proposed target of 285 affordable housing units
"unattainable" and potentially harmful to the town's development
plans.
"The 285-unit requirement, set at a 15% affordable housing
set-aside, is simply unrealistic for Little Falls," Damiano said.
"If we follow through with these requirements, developers will be
forced to cram too many units into spaces that can't support them.
It's going to result in extremely dense developments that are not
good for our town."
Damiano emphasized that achieving this goal would require the
construction of nearly 1,900 units, which would place significant
strain on the town's resources and community character. He pointed
to a redevelopment project, which included 287 units, as an example
of the density and challenges such projects bring to Little Falls.
"We would need to replicate that project seven more times to reach
the 285 affordable unit obligation," he added.
Damiano proposed that the township actively participate in the
class action lawsuit challenging New Jersey's affordable housing
rules, emphasizing the importance of being an involved party rather
than remaining on the sidelines. This initiative, led by the
Borough of Montvale in Bergen County, aims to address the
state-imposed requirements for municipal affordable housing.
"If the lawsuit is successful, the municipalities actively
participating in it will see reductions in their obligations," he
warned. "If we stay out, we risk being overlooked and missing out
on potential relief."
Council members expressed strong support for joining the lawsuit,
citing the burden of the state's unrealistic housing targets. "It's
a major concern," Councilman Mike Murphy said. "We don't want to
face the possibility of the class action lawsuit moving forward
without us, and then find ourselves stuck with an unattainable
number of units. We have to take action now to protect Little
Falls."
Councilwoman Christine Hablitz also voiced her support, adding, "As
we've seen with our neighboring municipalities like Totowa and
Woodland Park, joining this lawsuit could help bring the changes we
need. This is about protecting Little Falls from being overwhelmed
by unrealistic housing targets."
Councilman Chris Vancheri agreed, noting the challenge of
accommodating 1,900 units in a small town like Little Falls, which
spans just 2.8 square miles. "We simply don't have the space for
that kind of density," he said. "This is about finding a balance
between growth and maintaining the character of our community."
"We've been very aggressive in meeting our affordable housing
goals," Councilwoman Jayna Patel remarked. "But this new number
feels like a slap in the face, especially when you consider how
successful we've been. It's as if the state is punishing us for our
efforts."
The council has decided to take the next step by starting the
process to draft a resolution that would allow them to join the
class action lawsuit.
"It's clear that we can't continue to ignore the pressures being
placed on us," Council President Anthony Sgobba said. "We're a
small town with limited space, and we have to take a stand to
protect our community's future." [GN]
LIZZY'S FRESH: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Wilson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LIZZY'S FRESH COFFEE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12394 (N.D.
Ill., Dec. 2, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.lizzysfreshcoffee.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
On June 14, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to
purchase coffee. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was
denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an
unimpeded shopping experience, the lawsuit claims.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Wilson is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Lizzy's offers freshly roasted specialty grade Arabica coffees,
which are sourced from top growers around the globe. The company
offers a range of single origins and custom blends, ensuring a
variety of flavors to suit different preferences. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
LUMINAR TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Johnson Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luminar Technologies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 19, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from Johnson class suit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
On May 26, 2023, a putative class action styled Johnson v. Luminar
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-00982-PGB-LHP, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, against the Company and an employee.
The suit asserts purported claims on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s securities between February 28, 2023 and March 17, 2023
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly
misleading statements regarding the Company's photonic integrated
circuits technology. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on December 29, 2023, the motion was granted, and on July
8, 2024 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2024, which
remains pending.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint and intends
to vigorously defend the litigation. The Company presently does not
expect this matter to have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial results and did not accrue anything related to
this matter as of September 30, 2024.
Luminar Technologies, Inc. is a global automotive technology
company into vehicle safety and autonomy.
MANU-FORCE CORP: McClain Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher McClain, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated V. Manu-Force Corp. (Formerly Manu-Force, LLC), Jennifer
J. Kearney, and John Daniel Kearney, Jr., Case No. 3:24-cv-03001-S
(N.D. Tex., Dec. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have a business plan
that includes paying certain non-exempt workers the same hourly
rate for all hours worked, without paying them overtime pay for the
hours that they work over 40.
Plaintiff McClain worked over 40 hours in many workweeks that he
worked for Manu-Force. Similarly Situated Workers worked over 40
hours in many workweeks that they worked for Manu-Force. However,
Manu-Force did not pay McClain time-and-a-half for any of the
overtime hours that he worked for Manu-Force, the lawsuit alleges.
Mr. McClain worked directly for the Defendants as a maintenance
technician in the first half of 2024. He was sent by the Defendants
to perform maintenance and repair work on equipment belonging to
Defendants' customers.
Manu Force delivers manufacturing IoT solutions across ERP, PLC,
robotics, maintenance, and tooling.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert Filing Extended to Feb. 28, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Kathryn Starnella
entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to modify
scheduling order to extend deadlines.
-- The Phase 1 discovery cut-off is extended to Jan. 17, 2025.
-- The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended
to
Feb. 28, 2025.
-- The deadline to file a response to the motion for class
certification is extended to Apr. 11, 2025.
-- The deadline to file a reply to the motion for class
certification
is extended to May 9, 2025.
Marriott is an American multinational company that operates,
franchises, and licenses lodging brands.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 29, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9aIaKW at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 2262: Bid to File Memo Under Seal OK'd in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:11-md-02262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Naomi Buchwald entered an order granting request for
permission to file under seal the memorandum of law and
accompanying materials in support of both
(1) Credit Suisse, NatWest, and UBS's opposition to the
Plaintiffs' Oct. 4, 2024, motion for class certification;
and
(2) Bank of America and JPMorgan's motion for class
decertification
The Defendants' Class Certification Briefing contains a substantial
amount of material that has been designated Confidential or Highly
Confidential pursuant to the Amended Stipulation and Protective
Order, dated May 12, 2016, including commercially sensitive
business information of Defendants.
If such information were to be made publicly available, Defendants
and others could be disadvantaged.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=586ihc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Telephone: (212) 351-2395
Facsimile: (212) 351-4035
E-mail: jbell@gibsondunn.com
MDL 2670: Class Action Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:15-md-02670-DMS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Dana Sabraw entered an order granting End Payer Plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of class action settlement.
(1) The Court finds the StarKist Settlement Agreement and the
Lion
Companies Settlement Agreements and their respective terms
are
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of
the Settlement Class and direct that Settlement Agreements
be
consummated according to their respective terms;
(2) The Court finds that the Settlement Notice content and the
Settlement Notice Plan constituted, under the circumstances,
the best practicable notice of the Settlement Agreements and
the Fairness Hearing and constituted due and sufficient
notice
to Settlement Class Members;
(3) The Court finds that the relevant notices as required by the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1711, et seq. was
provided;
(4) In granting final approval of the Settlement Agreements, the
Court hereby enters Judgment of dismissal with prejudice of
the
Action, with each party to bear its own costs and
attorneys’
fees;
(5) This Judgment permanently bars and enjoins the institution,
commencement, or prosecution, by any of the Releasing
Parties,
of any action asserting any Released Claim against any
Released
Party, in any local, state, federal, or other court of any
nation, or in any agency or other authority or arbitral or
other forum wherever located;
(6) This Judgment also provides that any Settlement Class Member
who failed to object in the manner prescribed in the
Settlement
Agreements and Notices shall be deemed to have waived any
objections to the settlements and the Settlement Agreements
and
will forever be barred from making any such objections to
the
settlements or the Settlement Agreements;
The Plaintiff argues that his actions are different because
(1) they do not allege defendants underfilled their cans of
tuna,
(2) they do not contain antitrust claims, and
(3) plaintiff is an indirect purchaser. But plaintiff appears
to
misunderstand the nature of the claims pending in MDL No.
2670.
There are no actions in MDL No. 2670 that allege the under-filling
of tuna cans. Rather, like the Reo actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the price of canned tuna,
which had the effect of increasing its price.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sNF46a at no extra
charge.[CC]
MEDMINDER SYSTEMS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAQONDA HUMPHRIES, PO SHAN
LEUNG, AND CHRISTA TRABUCCO, Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. MEDMINDER SYSTEMS, INC. and TROY L.
HILSENROTH, Case No. 1:24-cv-10559-IT (D. Mass.), the Defendants
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to file
their response to Plaintiffs' motion to certify class conditionally
from Nov. 28, 2024 to Dec. 12, 2024.
The Defendants have conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs'
regarding this Motion, who has assented to the extension subject to
a concurrent 14 day extension in time for the statute of limitation
for any opt-ins to the class certification notice at issue in
Plaintiffs' Motion. The Defendants have agreed.
MedMinder is a provider of automatic pill dispensers that remind
users to take their medication through flashes, beeps, text
messages and phone calls.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3kV85C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan Hatfield, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
75 Park Plaza, 4th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 367-0025
E-mail: Jonathan.hatfield@jacksonlewis.com
MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend Kok Cybersecurity Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Water Products Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2024, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Kok cybersecurity class
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia.
In connection with the cybersecurity incident initially reported on
October 28, 2023, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned David Kok v. Mueller Water
Products, Inc., filed on August 30, 2024 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Case No.
1:24-cv-03894-SCJ. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all
Company current and former employees whose personally identifying
information was allegedly compromised by the incident.
The lawsuit asserts various common law tort, contract and state
statutory claims, seeks monetary damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, costs and attorneys' fees and other related
relief.
The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the claims; however, the outcome of
this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with certainty.
Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and
services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement
of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It
operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The
company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
NBI INC: Discovery on Class Cert Issues Stayed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harper, Kendra v. NBI,
Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-00644 (W.D. Wisc., Filed Sept. 11, 2024),
Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendant's motion to stay.
-- Discovery between the parties is stayed with respect to class
certification issues but is otherwise allowed.
-- Discovery to third parties is allowed on all issues.
-- The parties shall submit a joint letter updating the court on
the
status of the case 90 days from this order.
-- At that time, the court will set a status conference to revisit
the stay and resolve any other discovery issues the parties raise
in their letter.
The nature of suit state statutory actions.[CC]
NETWORK CAPITAL: Class Cert Hearing Extended to May 19, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NETWORK CAPITAL
FUNDING CORPORATION, Case No. 8:24-cv-01335-GW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order as follows:
1) The Defendant shall have through Jan. 9, 2025 to file a
motion
regarding standing; and
2) The hearing on Plaintiff's class certification motion shall
be
extended through May 19, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.
Network Capital provides home loan services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EMOo1P at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW CHEUN HING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lopez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW CHEUN HING KITCHEN LI INC. (D/B/A CHEUN
HING KITCHEN); NEW CHEUN HING KITCHEN CAI INC. (D/B/A CHEUN HING
KITCHEN); NEW CHEUN HING KITCHEN YANG INC. (D/B/A CHEUN HING
KITCHEN); LEI LI; and XIUJUAN YANG, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-08142 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 22, 2024) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Lopez was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen
assistant.
New Cheun Hing Kitchen Li Inc. owns, operates, or controls a
Chinese food restaurant, located at 126-18 101st Avenue, South
Richmond Hill, NY 11419, under the name "Cheun Hing Kitchen". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Allowed to Seal Oral Argument Presentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall-Landers v. New York
University, Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting Defendant's motion to
seal its oral argument presentation slide deck in opposition to
class certification.
New York University is a private institution that was founded in
1831.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otXM8r at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
DLA Piper LLP (US)
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 335-4632
Facsimile: (212) 884-8632
E-mail: keara.gordon@us.dlapiper.com
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Hall-Landers Can File Transcript Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall-Landers, v. New York
University (NYU), Case No. 1:20-cv-03250-GBD-SLC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Sarah Cave entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion
to seal.
Pursuant to Rule I(F) of Your Honor's Individual Rules of Practice,
and the Court's Nov. 21, 2024, Order, the Plaintiff requests that
the Court permit Plaintiff to file certain portions of the class
certification hearing transcript under seal.
Specifically, NYU has marked the deposition transcript of Martin
Dorph and Clay Shirky as confidential and the same were filed under
seal as part of Plaintiff’s opening brief.
Therefore, Plaintiff has redacted the portions of the transcript
that specifically quote or summarize the deposition testimony filed
under seal.
In addition, Plaintiff has redacted the portions of the transcript
that reference their protected and/or private health information,
which was also sealed in both Defendant’s opposition and
Plaintiff’s reply brief and was the subject of the Court's
September 19, 2024 and October 31, 2024 sealing Orders.
The Plaintiff will file a redacted version of the materials on the
public docket and provide the Court and Defendant with unredacted
versions separately.
New York University is a private institution that was founded in
1831.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E1pBe6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah n. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 679-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
NORDIC NATURALS: Must Supplement Sales Responses in Caldwell Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERYL CALDWELL, v. NORDIC
NATURALS, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-02818-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Edward Chen entered an order re: discovery dispute:
-- The Court orders Defendant to supplement its responses and
produce
nationwide sales, and all units sold to retailers, wholesalers,
and distributors.
-- It is premature at this stage for Defendant to argue that a
nationwide class could not be certified, or that nationwide
sales
are not relevant.
-- Additionally, sales of all retail and units sold could be
relevant
to Plaintiff's damages model for a nationwide class, as they
will
be required to submit, at minimum, a proposal for calculating
damages on a class-wide basis.
The Plaintiff Cheryl Caldwell has filed a putative class action on
behalf of herself and a nationwide class of those similarly
situated against Defendant based on the sale of its dietary
supplement product "Ultimate (TM) Omega 2X."
The Plaintiff claims that Defendant's use of "2X" in conjunction
with "Ultimate Omega" on the front of the package misleads
consumers into thinking that there is double the amount of omega-3
("omega") per serving than the amount of omega in the Nordic
Naturals product named "Ultimate (TM) Omega."
The Parties filed a joint letter brief regarding the scope of
allowed discovery prior to class certification.
The Defendant argues the Plaintiffs are unlikely to be able to
certify a nationwide class, thus discovery regarding nationwide
sales is not relevant.
Further, Defendant argues sales made directly to consumers are the
only relevant sales, as opposed to sales to third-parties, who then
sell to consumers.
Nordic sells vitamins and supplements including animal oils, fish
oils, and marine animal oils.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uqnWhT at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORDSEC LTD: Court Dismisses Hanscom Suit
-----------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS HANSCOM, v. NORDSEC
LTD.; TEFINCOM S.A.; NORDSEC B.V.; NORD SECURITY INC.; AND NORDVPN
S.A., Case No. 3:24-cv-00277-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge
Kenneth Bell entered an order that:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims
pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and
12(b)(6), is granted; and
2. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with
this Order.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff lacks standing to
pursue his claims and Defendants' 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss will
be granted.
In this putative class action, the Plaintiff contends that
Defendants should be held liable for "tricking" online consumers
into purchasing automatically renewing internet security services
and making it difficult to cancel their subscriptions.
The Plaintiff contends that Nord "deploys at least five deceptive
and unlawful tactics designed to trap consumers." These include the
allegation that Nord Security makes deceptive promises that
consumers can "try" its services "risk-free for 30-days" during
which consumers can "cancel your subscription and get your money
back," rendering the trial "no hassle, no risk."
NordSec is engaged in the business of selling internet security
products and services to consumers in North Carolina and across the
United States, including a virtual private network, a password
manager, and encrypted cloud storage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I7Mqwa at no extra
charge.[CC]
NORTHERN TRUST: Emerson Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANDLER EMERSON is taking an appeal from a court order denying her
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Chandler Emerson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Northern Trust Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:23-cv-00241-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, Mendocino County, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, is brought against the
Defendant for (1) breach of fiduciary duty (based on the tax return
preparation charges); (2) accounting (as to the tax-return
charges); (3) unjust enrichment (based on the tax return
preparation charges); (4) violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code (based on the tax
return preparation and class action service charges); (5) breach of
fiduciary duty (based on the class action service charges); (6)
accounting (as to the class action service charges); (7) unjust
enrichment (based on the class action service charges); and (8)
violations of the California's Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult
Civil Protection Act.
On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Trina L. Thompson denied on Nov. 8, 2024. The Court
held that the Plaintiff has not established commonality, adequacy,
or predominance as required for class certification under Rule 23.
The appellate case is captioned Emerson v. Northern Trust
Corporation, Case No. 24-7098, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 22, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiff-Petitioner CHANDLER EMERSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
BRANDI LAW FIRM
354 Pine Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Thomas John Brandi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS J. BRANDI
354 Pine St., Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Derek G. Howard, Esq.
DEREK G. HOWARD LAW FIRM, INC.
42 Miller Avenue Mill Valley, CA 94941
Defendant-Respondent NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION is represented by:
Rachael M. Trummel, Esq.
Daniel Weiss, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654
- and -
Laura Joy Edelstein, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
525 Market Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
NVIDIA CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NVIDIA Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending October 27, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 20, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The plaintiffs in the putative securities class action lawsuit,
captioned 4:18-cv-07669-HSG, initially filed on December 21, 2018
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and titled In Re NVIDIA Corporation Securities
Litigation, filed an amended complaint on May 13, 2020. The amended
complaint asserted that NVIDIA and certain NVIDIA executives
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making
materially false or misleading statements related to channel
inventory and the impact of cryptocurrency mining on GPU demand
between May 10, 2017 and November 14, 2018.
Plaintiffs also alleged that the NVIDIA executives who they named
as defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and further relief as
the Court may deem just and proper.
On March 2, 2021, the district court granted NVIDIA's motion to
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend, entered judgment in
favor of NVIDIA and closed the case.
On March 30, 2021, plaintiffs filed an appeal from judgment in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, case number
21-15604.
On August 25, 2023, a majority of a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's
dismissal of the case, with a third judge dissenting on the basis
that the district court did not err in dismissing the case.
On November 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit denied NVIDIA's petition
for rehearing en banc of the Ninth Circuit panel's majority
decision to reverse in part the dismissal of the case, which NVIDIA
had filed on October 10, 2023.
On November 21, 2023, NVIDIA filed a motion with the Ninth Circuit
for a stay of the mandate pending NVIDIA's petition for a writ of
certiorari in the Supreme Court of the United States and the
Supreme Court's resolution of the matter.
On December 5, 2023, the Ninth Circuit granted NVIDIA's motion to
stay the mandate.
NVIDIA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on March 4, 2024.
On June 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States granted
NVIDIA's petition for a writ of certiorari. Briefing concluded on
October 25, 2024 and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on
November 13, 2024.
Nvidia is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.
OLD DOMINION: Parties Must File Proper Motion, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID K. SEALY, KERRY
CARTER and HARVEY L. DAVIS, on behalf of the Old Dominion 401(k)
Retirement Plan, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-00819-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C.), Hon. Judge Thomas Schroeder does
not intend to act on a stipulation.
-- The parties may file a proper motion.
-- Any motion should also address whether any sub-classes (such as
those related to the R5 and R6 share class funds and/or those
alleged to include excessive investment-related fees) should
be included in the class definition.
-- The court appreciates the parties' desire to "streamline the
litigation," but they cannot short-circuit the fundamental
requirements of the class action rules designed to protect all
putative class members.
Old Dominion is an inter-regional and multi-regional motor
carrier.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JHBFEv at no extra
charge.[CC]
PEACOCK TV: Class Settlement in Winston Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HOLLY WINSTON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PEACOCK TV LLC,
Case No. 1:23-cv-08191-ALC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge entered a
final approval order and judgment as follows:
-- The Court finds that the prerequisites for a settlement class
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) have
been satisfied, for purposes of settlement only.
-- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, this Court finally certifies
this action, for purposes of settlement, a class action on
behalf of all Persons who, from Sept. 15, 2019, to and
through
Feb. 27, 2024, enrolled in an automatically renewing Peacock
Subscription directly through Peacock using a California
billing
and/or delivery address, and who were charged and paid an
automatic renewal fee(s) in connection with such
subscription.
Excluded from this definition are the Released Parties.
Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the
Settlement, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Paragraph
4.5 of the Settlement Agreement, shall no longer thereafter
be
Settlement Class Members and shall not be bound by the
Settlement Agreement and shall not be eligible to make a
claim
for any benefit under the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
-- The Court appoints the law firms of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and
Gucovschi Rozenshteyn, PLLC as Class Counsel for the
Settlement
Class. The Court designates Plaintiff Holly Winston as the
Class
Representative.
-- Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h), the Court awards Class
Counsel attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of
$1,247,545.71. The Court also orders payment of an incentive
award(s) in the amount(s) of $5000.00 to the Plaintiff Holly
Winston. These amounts are to be paid in the time and manner
described in the Settlement Agreement.
On Aug. 1, 2024, this Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement agreement between the parties.
Peacock is an over-the-top video streaming service company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bjBya9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHONE LCD: FLSA Collective Conditional Certification Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARUK BILIR, OZKAN
KARAVELIOGLU, ILHAN GOKSU on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, v. PHONE LCD PARTS LLC (d/b/a "Phone LCD
Parts"), ONDER SAYAR, ONUR OZBINAR, IHSAN ORUC and KUBILAY HAN
BASCAVUS, Case No. 2:23-cv-13643-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs,
on Dec. 16, 2024, will move this Court for an Order granting
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
("NJWHL").
The Plaintiffs also seek for an order
-- Directing the Defendants to disclose the names and contact
information of all potential collective members;
-- Authorizing the dissemination of notice to the proposed
collective in English and Turkish through various channels;
-- Approving a ninety-day opt-in period with a reminder notice at
the midpoint;
-- equitably tolling the statute of limitations and for such
other
and further relief as this Court deems proper.
Phone LCD Parts provides wholesale cell phone, LCD, and mobile
device replacement parts to organizations.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V9uq3z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clifford Tucker, Esq.,
SACCO & FILLAS LLP
31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor
Astoria, NY 11102
Telephone: (718) 269-2243
E-mail: CTucker@Saccofillas.com
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Bosarge Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MILTON WAYNE
BOSARGE, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-05159-TSZ-SKV
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order as
follows:
(1) The instant action is stayed. The stay shall remain in
effect
until further order of the Court. The Clerk is directed to
statistically close this case at the present time.
(2) 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. 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.
(3) Plaintiff's pending motions for separation/severance and for
appointment of counsel are denied as moot. To the extent
the Plaintiff seeks to have his case proceed separately from
Wolfclan, the Plaintiff is advised that this case remains a
separate action at this juncture, but in the interest of
judicial efficiency this action is appropriately stayed
while
discovery proceeds in Wolfclan and class certification
issues
are addressed therein.
(4) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the
Plaintiff and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly.
This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. section
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.
The Plaintiff here 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.
Pierce County is a county in the U.S. state of Washington. The
county seat and largest city is Tacoma.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VkIKma at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chambers Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENE CHAMBERS, v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:24-cv-00141-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julie Sneed
entered an order that:
1. Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by
the Plaintiff, Gene Chambers is denied.
2. Defendant shall answer the amended complaint in compliance
with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A).
In any event, the court agrees with Plaintiff on the merits of the
motion. As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, an "excess
judgment against [an insured] harm[s] [the insured's] bankruptcy
estate by increasing the debt of the estate to the detriment of its
creditors."
When the court "accept[s] the allegations in the [amended]
complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable
to [P]laintiff," the court concludes that harm to the bankruptcy
estate has been sufficiently pleaded under the applicable federal
pleading standards. Defendant's argument to the contrary is not
persuasive, particularly considering the minimal legal authority
and explication supporting it.
In December 2023, the Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by suing the
Defendant in state court for bad faith. As relief, the Plaintiff
sought "all unpaid and unsatisfied amounts of the final judgment,"
"accrued interest on the final judgment," and "consequential
damages including costs and attorney fees."
The Defendant subsequently removed the lawsuit to this court based
on diversity jurisdiction.
In June 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
the same count and seeking the same relief as in the initial
complaint.
In October 2018, Borrero crashed her car into motorcyclist James
Spalding. "As a result of the crash," Spalding was "severely
injured": for example, his "left foot was amputated," and he
fractured his left arm.
Progressive Select offers auto, trailers, motorcycles, boats,
renters, condos, flood, life, and health insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2HUw4z at no extra
charge.[CC]
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Torres Insurance Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIE TORRES, et al., v.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., ACTIVEPROSPECT, INC., and ASSURANCE IQ,
LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-07465-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Charles
Breyer entered an order:
-- certifying the following class in this action:
"All natural persons who, while in California, visited
Prudential.com, provided personal information on Prudential's
form
to receive a quote for life insurance, and for whom a
TrustedForm
Certificate URL associated with that website visit was
generated
from Nov. 23, 2021 to Dec. 13, 2022"; and
-- appointing Girard Sharp LLP as class counsel and Valerie Torres
and Rhonda Hyman as class representatives.
The Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants' records are "capable of
showing" which individuals filled out the Prudential form and had
their communication intercepted; that is "all that is necessary at
the certification stage."
The Plaintiffs additionally contend that Assurance's database could
easily be used to identify any potential class members who used a
VPN by cross-referencing a class member’s ZIP code with their IP
address
Because this method is capable of identifying class members who
filled out the form while in California, the issue of location does
not defeat predominance.
The Plaintiffs allege that Active Prospect intercepted and recorded
without consent their real-time interactions with a form on
Prudential’s website in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act, and that Prudential and Assurance aided in this
violation.
Prudential offers a variety of products and services, including
life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, pension, and retirement
related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQwh5K at no extra
charge.[CC]
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Pizzeria Seeks OK of Renewed Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WOODY'S PIZZERIA, INC.,
and COASTAL COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC. v.
REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC. and REPUBLIC SERVICES OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
INC., Case No. 7:22-cv-01242-RMG (D.S.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order granting renewed motion for class
certification.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' proposed Rate Increase Class and Fees
Class satisfy the requirements for class certification. Numerosity
is satisfied as the class exceeds 8,000 members.
Numerous common questions exist because Plaintiffs' claims turn on
Republic’s YMP Rate Increase and Fee policies and practices, as
well as a standardized Rate Adjustments contractual provision.
These central common questions outweigh any individual issues which
may arise and therefore satisfies the predominance requirement.
Plaintiffs’ claims are not merely typical of those of the
Classes, but identical, and the interests of Plaintiffs are
identical to those of the Classes.
Class treatment is the superior method for adjudicating this
dispute, and management of this litigation going forward presents
no manageability issues. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons and
based upon the law and evidence provided, Plaintiffs respectfully
request that the Court grant their motion and certify the proposed
classes.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following Classes:
The Rate Increase Class:
"All entities and people in South Carolina who entered into a
Rate
Adjustments provision that allows for increases to "adjust
for"
increases in costs or CPI and, from June 1, 2018 through the
date
of class notice, paid rates to Republic in excess of those
originally listed in the written contract as a result of
Republic's YMP policy."
The Fees Class:
"All entities and people in South Carolina who entered into a
Rate
Adjustments provision that allows for increases to "adjust
for"
increases in costs or CPI and, from June 1, 2018 through the
date
of class notice, paid Fuel Recovery Fees and/or Environmental
Recovery Fees to Republic."
Republic provides waste disposal services to customers in 41
states, including South Carolina.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=svUGKX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian C. Duffy, Esq.
Patrick C. Wooten, Esq.
DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC
96 Broad Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 720-2044
E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com
pwooten@duffyandyoung.com
- and -
Oscar M. Price, IV, Esq.
Nicholas W. Armstrong
PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
1919 Cahaba Road
Birmingham, AL 35223
Telephone: (205) 208-9588
E-mail: oscar@pricearmstrong.com
nick@pricearmstrong.com
- and -
T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
HODGE & LANGLEY, PC
229 Magnolia Street
Spartanburg, SC 29304
Telephone: (850) 222-2000
E-mail: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com
- and -
H. Ryan Lutz, Esq.
CORY WATSON PC
2131 Magnolia Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-2200
E-mail: rlutz@corywatson.com
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams WARN Act Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA WILLIAMS, ET AL., v.
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 9:24-cv-80787-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying this case as a class action for the group of
former
employees pursuant to the WARN Act and state wage laws;
(2) appointing Mia Williams, Brittany Calvert, Dedtra Davis, and
Alisa Leggett as class representatives;
(3) appointing Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Michael Pancier
as
class counsel; and
(4) and approve the proposed class notice.
The proposed class satisfies all of Rule 23's requirements and
fulfills the objective and rationale for efficiently resolving such
claims on a class-wide basis, the Plaintiffs contend.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as:
"All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health, or its
related
entities, who worked at or reported to Defendant's facilities in
Florida, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut and were not given a
minimum
of 60 days' written notice of termination and whose employment
was
terminated without cause on or about June 24, 2024, within 30
days
of that date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably
expected consequence of the mass layoffs or plant closings (as
defined by the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act
of 1988)."
Retreat was a provider of behavioral and mental health services in
Florida, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ShLGnq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C
Clearwater, FL 33765
Telephone: (727) 441-4947
Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
mnadeau@employeerights.com
- and -
Michael A. Pancier
MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Telephone: (954) 862-2217
SAFE STREETS: Class Settlement in Anderson Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Anderson, v. Safe
Streets USA, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00323-KJM-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the
Court entered an order granting 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 days after the
settlement becomes fully funded. At that point, the court will
enter its Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.
In sum, 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.
SafeStreets is a registered provider of ADT security equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zgthmL at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Settlement Deal in Cantave Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cantave, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Saint Joseph's
University, Case No. 2:23-cv-03181-MMB (E.D. Pa.), Hon. Judge
entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
settlement:
-- The Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees, costs, and
case contribution award to settlement class representative is
granted in part and denied in part.
-- The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair,
adequate,
and reasonable.
-- Accordingly, the Court confirms as final its approval of the
Settlement Agreement as stated in the Preliminary Approval
Order.
-- Additionally, and as will be discussed in more detail below,
the
Court finds that the requested attorneys' fees are not
reasonable
given the limited discovery and motions practice in this case.
-- The Court finds that given the modest size of the class and
fund,
the expediated manner in which the case was resolved, the time
that counsel devoted to this case compared to other Covid-19
tuition reimbursement cases, and the lack of innovative
settlement
terms, counsel is entitled to 19% of the fund in attorneys’
fees.
The Plaintiff Jaulie Cantave brings this putative class action
alleging that the Defendant breached an implied-in-fact contract
and was unjustly enriched when it transitioned to a remote format
during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Settlement Class is defined as:
"All undergraduate students enrolled at SJU who satisfied their
tuition payment obligation and attended at least one in-person
class on campus during the Spring 2020 semester but had their
class(es) moved to online learning."
Excluded from the Settlement Class is: (i) any person who
withdrew
from SJU on or before March 19, 2020; (ii) any person enrolled
for
the Spring 2020 semester solely in a program that was
originally
delivered as an online program without regard to any changes in
modality resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic; or (iii) any
person
who received Financial Aid equal to or exceeding the applicable
tuition for the Spring 2020 Semester.
Saint Joseph's is a private institution that was founded in 1851.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VMMm5W at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAN ANTONIO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Clement Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT CLEMENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SAN ANTONIO SHOE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-08298
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website,
www.sasshoes.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.
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website to
purchase shoes. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff
was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and
accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from having
an unimpeded shopping experience, the suit says.
The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These
barriers include: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse. Because simple compliance with the
WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other
visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional
discrimination, added the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
San Antonio specializes in offering high-quality, comfortable
footwear for men and women, including casual shoes, sandals, dress
shoes, and athletic shoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Dec. 12 Hearing on Initial OK of Settlement Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEVON ANDERSON and BEVERLY
L. SWEENEY on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, and SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, and SAN FRANCISCO EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01149-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Donna Ryu entered an order the hearing date for the Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement will
be set on Dec. 12, 2024 (the same date on which the hearing for the
motion for class certification is set).
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nbt2gy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
BARTON & DOWNES LLP
1633 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 734-7046
E-mail: jbarton@bartondownes.com
- and -
Michael J. Scimone, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: mscimone@outtengolden.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Chiu, Esq.
Matthew K. Yan, Esq.
Dante R. Taylor, Esq.
Jonathan C. Rolnick, Esq.
SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1390 Market Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 554-4267
Facsimile: (415) 554-4248
E-mail: Matthew.Yan@sfcityatty.org
Dante.Taylor@sfcityatty.org
Jonathan.Rolnick@sfcityatty.org
SANTANDER BANK: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Almanzar Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Juan B. Almanzar v.
Santander Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-10706-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order sealing Exhibits A and B
of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:
-- Exhibits A and B are "of a personal or intimate nature" as
related
to previously nondisclosed financial history of credit card
applicants whom Santander will argue in its forthcoming
Opposition
to the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification should not be
class members in this case.
-- Specifically, under this category, Santander seeks to protect
information concerning the non-party applicants' consumer
reports
and denial letters related to their credit card applications.
Santander offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Nov. 29, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=itnnW9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Casey D. Laffey, Esq.
Reed Smith LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-7650
Telephone: (212) 549-0389
Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
E-mail: claffey@reedsmith.com
SCENTSIBLE LLC: Pourri.com Not Accessible to the Blind, Miller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SCENTSIBLE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01169
(W.D.N.Y., Dec. 2, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://pourri.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Toilet Spray and to view
the information on the Website, the Plaintiff allegedly encountered
multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping
experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal
access to the goods and services offered to the public and made
available to the public.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendants corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Ms. Miller is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Scentsible offers natural odor fresheners, air & fabric sprays,
candles, deodorant, potty pods and diaper fresheners.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
SCRIBE MEDIA: Court Certifies Class of Scribe Employees
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALYSSA CORMIER, ET. AL, v.
SCRIBE MEDIA, LLC, ET. AL, Case No. 1:23-cv-00647-DAE (W.D. Tex.),
the Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class.
The certified class is defined as "all former Scribe employees
throughout the United States who were terminated as a result of a
'mass layoff,' as defined by the WARN Act, without 60 days advance
written notice, beginning on May 24, 2023."
The Court further orders that the:
-- Plaintiffs Alyssa Cormier, Claire Brudner, Marianna Acosta,
and Esty Pittan are appointed as class representatives, and
that
Kaplan Law Firm, PLCC is appointed as class counsel.
-- Plaintiffs must provide notice to potential class members
through
First Class mail, postage prepaid, by SMS/text, and by
electronic
mail.
Additionally, the Court finds that adjudicating this case once in
this district as a class action is superior to adjudicating it
several times in several courts across the country. The Court thus
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiffs
satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that common questions
predominate over individualized ones and that a class action is the
superior method of resolving the WARN Act claims in this case.
The Court also overrules Bond's objection that should a class be
certified, it should be limited to only those employees terminated
on May 24, 2023. After reviewing the matter de novo, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the record
demonstrates that class members may have been laid off after May
24, 2023, and that the statute itself permits courts to consider
employment losses "within any 90-day period" of an alleged layoff
date to ascertain whether other terminations were part of the same
"mass layoff," as defined under the statute.
Scribe Media is a writing service company that offers editing,
publishing, book coaching, and marketing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wts06A at no extra
charge.[CC]
SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Larios Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR FLORES LARIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant, Case 2:24-cv-03272-AC (E.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2024)
seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Larios was employed by the Defendant as a janitor.
Service Management Systems, Inc. specializes in housekeeping and
building maintenance services. The Company offers restrooms,
restaurants, kitchen, bar, and parking garages cleaning, laundry,
trash collection, deep scrubbing, and floor surface stripping, as
well as asset, work, and materials management services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
Ori Edelstein, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
SM ENERGY: Court Junks Garvey Bid to Approve Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL GARVEY, individually
and for others similarly situated, v. SM ENERGY COMPANY, Case No.
1:23-cv-02508-CNS-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte Sweeney
entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's
unopposed motion to approve settlement.
The Motion to Approve Settlement is denied. If the parties reapply
for Court approval of a new settlement agreement, they should, at a
minimum, address the issues discussed above.
The Court, however, will permit Plaintiff to move for authorization
of notice to be sent to Day Rate Workers consistent with this
opinion and the prevailing caselaw to provide the putative
plaintiffs an opportunity to opt in and object to any future
settlement agreements.
Because, among several other deficiencies, Plaintiff provides no
indication that he provided opt-in plaintiffs with notice of the
settlement and an opportunity to object, the Court denies the
present motion.
The Court cannot appropriately evaluate the proposed attorneys' fee
award at this time. To start, the Court does not know the size of
the collective class -- or whether there will be a class. Although
SM Energy has identified approximately 99 individuals who may be
part of the class, the docket currently only reflects a class of
three. And as noted, the docket does not suggest "protracted
litigation" has occurred, as Plaintiff argues, such that an award
of $1,030,000.00 is warranted at this time.
The Plaintiff Garvey initiated this collective action lawsuit to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from SM Energy
Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
SM Energy is a company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dIHhUE at no extra
charge.[CC]
SPECIALTYCARE: Dorta Seeks to Certify Neurophysiologist Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIGUEL DORTA and NATHAN
FUCHS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. SPECIALTYCARE, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00892 (M.D. Tenn.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting certification
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of a
class comprised of:
"all surgical neurophysiologists employed by SpecialtyCare and
subject to its training repayment agreement at any point from
Aug. 23, 2017 to the present."
For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum of law,
exhibits, declarations, and any arguments of counsel, Plaintiffs
request that the Court grant their motion and authorize the
distribution of class notice.
SpecialtyCare provides outsourced clinical services for hospitals,
physicians, and clinicians.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L0de3w at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Joshua R. Cottle, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
jcottle@nka.com
- and -
Bryce W. Ashby, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com
- and -
Juno Turner, Esq.
David H. Seligman, Esq.
Rachel Dempsey, Esq.
TOWARDS JUSTICE
Denver, CO 80237-5680
Telephone: (720) 441-2236
E-mail: juno@towardsjustice.org
david@towardsjustice.org
rachel@towardsjustice.org
SPORTS RESEARCH: Class Action Settlement in Capaci Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANK CAPACI, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SPORTS RESEARCH CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-03440-FMO-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order re: final
approval of class action settlement.
1. Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement
is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in this
Order.
2. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive
award is granted upon the terms and conditions set forth in
this
Order.
3. The court grants final approval of the parties' class action
settlement agreement. The court finds that the Settlement
Agreement is fair, adequate and reasonable, appears to be the
product of arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and
treats
all members of the class fairly. The parties are ordered to
perform their obligations pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and this Order
4. The settlement class is certified under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c) as defined in section 6.1 of the Settlement
Agreement and this Order.
5. The form, manner, and content of the Class Notice meet the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2).
6. Plaintiff Cynthia Ford shall be paid a service payment of
$5,000.00 in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement and this Order.
7. Class counsel shall be paid $550,000.00 in attorney's fees,
and
$131,810.76 in costs in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and this Order.
8. The Settlement Administrator, Classaura, shall be paid its
fees
in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and
this Order.
9. All class members who did not validly and timely request
exclusion have released their claims against any of the
released
parties (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) as set forth
in
this Order and the Settlement Agreement.
10. Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, this action is dismissed with prejudice, with
all
Sports Research provides health and wellness products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 25, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ppa5H1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
SPRUCE POWER: Continues to Defend XL Fleet Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Spruce Power Holding Corp. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report for
November 13, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on November 19, 2024, that the Company continues to defend itself
from the XL Fleet class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation has previously reported that, on
September 20, 2021, and October 19, 2021, two class action
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
certain of the Company's current officers and directors, and the
Company's sponsor of its special purpose acquisition company
merger, Pivotal Investment Holdings II LLC.
These actions were consolidated as in re XL Fleet Corp. (Pivotal)
Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 2021-0808, and an amended
complaint was filed on January 31, 2022.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May
13, 2022, and on July 11, 2022, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.
The second amended complaint alleged various breaches of fiduciary
duty against the Company and/or its officers, several allegedly
misleading statements made in connection with the merger, and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with
the negotiation and approval of the December 21, 2020 merger and
organization of XL Hybrids, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Legacy
XL") to become XL Fleet Corp.
On November 13, 2024, the lead plaintiff and the defendants entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise and
Release (the "Settlement Agreement") to resolve the Class Action
Litigation. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the
Company will pay an aggregate of $4.75 million to a settlement fund
to settle all claims asserted in the Class Action Litigation, class
counsel's fees, and the costs of administering the settlement.
The Settlement Agreement establishes procedures for the
notification of claimants and the administration of the settlement.
The settlement fund will be used to pay notice and administrative
fees relating to the Class Action Litigation and to compensate
those individuals who were class members during the applicable
class period; no amount of the settlement fund will revert to the
Company.
The settlement fund will be managed by a neutral third-party claims
administrator, which will be authorized to communicate with class
members and make payments from the fund in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The foregoing summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Settlement Agreement, which is attached as Exhibit 99.1 to this
report and incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the Class
Action Litigation, including no assurance that the Settlement
Agreement will be approved by the Court or that any revised
settlement terms, if applicable, will be finalized by the parties
and approved by the Court.
The execution of the Settlement Agreement does not constitute an
admission by the Company of any fault or liability and the Company
does not admit fault or liability.
If the settlement cannot be finalized by the parties or the
Settlement Agreement is not approved by the Court, the Company will
defend the Class Action Litigation vigorously and believes there
are meritorious defenses and legal standards that must be met for,
among other things, success on the merits.
If the parties are unable to finalize the settlement, the Class
Action Litigation could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner
and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United
States, offering subscription-based services to approximately
75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy
more accessible to everyone.
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Faces Rammohan Suit Over SEC Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for
the quarterly period ended September 28, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission in October 29, 2024, that on
March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled "Naresh
Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al.," Case No.
3:23-cv-00369-KAD, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut against the company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between
October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements
related to consumer demand for the company's products amid changing
COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses.
On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of
the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserts the
same claims and seeks the same forms of relief as the original
complaint.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. is into hand and power tools and is
based in New Britain CT.
TEKSYSTEMS INC: Court Partially Stays Avery Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BO AVERY, et al., v.
TEKSYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-02733-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting 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. This Order disposes of Docket No.
132.
But, 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.
In sum, 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.
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.
TEKsystems provides information technology services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AVdWhp at no extra
charge.[CC]
TEVA PHARMA: Class Cert Ruling Entered in Connecticut Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
et al., v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00710-MPS (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Michael Shea denying
ECF Nos. 475 and 615 in the Heritage case, 16cv2056, and granting
ECF Nos. 203, 405, and 406 in the Teva case, 19cv710.
-- In the Heritage case, the operative complaint will remain ECF
No.
473.
-- In the Teva case, the States shall file and serve on the new
proposed defendants forthwith the proposed amended complaint.
Two
additional points.
-- First, the parties in the Teva case shall meet and confer
within
21 days of the filing of an appearance by counsel for Novartis
and
Sandoz AG about any proposed amendments to the scheduling order
the Court adopted in August. ECF No. 384.
-- Within 7 days of their meet and confer, they shall file a joint
proposed revised scheduling order or, if they cannot agree,
separate proposals in the same joint filing.
-- Second, the parties in the Heritage and Teva cases shall meet
and
confer within 21 days of this ruling and shall, within 7 days
thereafter, file a joint statement in each case indicating
whether
I should revisit my August 15, 2024 order designating the Teva
case as "Case Number 1" and the Heritage case as "Case Number
2,"
the Judge Shea says.
The Plaintiffs include THE STATE OF ALASKA; THE STATE OF ARIZONA;
THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE STATE OF
COLORADO; THE STATE OF DELAWARE; THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; THE
STATE OF FLORIDA; THE STATE OF HAWAII; THE STATE OF IDAHO; THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE STATE OF INDIANA; THE STATE OF IOWA; THE
STATE OF KANSAS; THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY; THE STATE OF
LOUISIANA; THE STATE OF MAINE; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA; THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; THE STATE OF MISSOURI; THE
STATE OF MONTANA; THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY; THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA; THE STATE OF OHIO; THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA;
THE STATE OF OREGON; THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; THE STATE
OF SOUTH CAROLINA; THE STATE OF TENNESSEE; THE STATE OF UTAH; THE
STATE OF VERMONT; THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON; THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; THE STATE OF WISCONSIN; and
THE STATE OF WYOMING.
The Defendants include ACTAVIS HOLDCO US, INC.; ACTAVIS PHARMA,
INC.; APOTEX CORP.; ASCEND LABORATORIES, LLC; CITRON PHARMA, LLC;
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, INC.; EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD;
GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA; HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
LANNETT COMPANY, INC.; RAJIV MALIK; MAYNE PHARMA (USA), INC.;
SATISH MEHTA; MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; SANDOZ, INC.; SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.; and ZYDUS
PHARMACEUTICALS (USA), INC.
Teva Pharmaceuticals is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical
company, specializing primarily in generic drugs.
A copy of the Court's ruling dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FMnX6X at no extra
charge.[CC]
THS GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Lynch Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
BARTON LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THS GROUP LLC d/b/a SERVICEPLUS HOME
WARRANTY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02191-RSH-KSC (S.D. Cal.,
Nov. 22, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls.
THS Group LLC d/b/a Serviceplus Home Warranty provides home
warranty protection against inevitable home system component and
appliance breakdowns. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (657) 200-1403
Email: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
TOHVT MOTORS: Final Progression Order Entered in Lazo Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKENZIE LAZO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; v.
TOHVT MOTORS, LLC, a Delaware registered company; Case No.
8:24-cv-00127-BCB-RCC (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Ryan Carson entered
an amended final progression order as follows:
1) The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this
time.
A status conference to discuss case progression, the
parties'
interest in settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference
settings will be held as previously scheduled, with the
undersigned magistrate judge on April 8, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
by
telephone. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions
assigned to this case to participate in the conference.
2) Motions to compel written discovery under Rules 33, 34, 36,
and
45 must be filed by Dec. 6, 2024. Note: A motion to compel,
to
quash, or for a disputed protective order shall not be filed
without first contacting the chambers of the undersigned
magistrate judge to set a conference for discussing the
parties'
dispute.
3) The deadlines for complete expert disclosures1 for all
experts
expected to testify at trial, (both retained experts, (Fed.
R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)), and non-retained experts, (Fed. R. Civ.
P.
26(a)(2)(C)), are:
For the party with the burden of proof: Jan. 13, 2025
Rebuttal expert disclosures/reports: April 1, 2025
Reply expert disclosures/reports: May 19, 2025
4) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to
depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is June
30,
2025.
5) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be filed on
or
before July 31, 2025.
Defendant's response shall be filed on or before August 29,
2025.
Plaintiff's reply in support of her Motion for Class
Certification shall be filed on or before September 12, 2025.
6) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for
summary judgment is July 21, 2025.
7) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on
Daubert
and related grounds is July 21, 2025.
8) Motions in limine shall be filed seven days before the
pretrial
conference. It is not the normal practice to hold hearings on
motions in limine or to rule on them prior to the first day
of
trial. Counsel should plan accordingly.
9) The parties shall comply with all other stipulations and
agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that
are
not inconsistent with this order.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VpZIQg at no extra
charge.[CC]
TRUEACCORD CORP: Wins Summary Judgment v. Quinn-Davis
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NINA QUINN-DAVIS, v.
TRUEACCORD CORP., Case No. 1:23-cv-23590-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge David Leibowitz entered an order granting the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment:
-- The Defendant shall submit a proposed Final Judgment in
Microsoft
Word format to leibowitz@flsd.uscourts.gov no later than
Dec. 2, 2024.
Because TrueAccord communicated with Quinn-Davis between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. local time, TrueAccord "shall assume
that the convenient time for communicating with" Quinn-Davis was
when it did so, and therefore no violation occurred.
Importantly, when it comes to evidence of the Quinn-Davis's
"convenience" or communications preferences, there is no evidence
in the record of "knowledge of circumstances to the contrary."
In response to TrueAccord's Motion, Quinn-Davis did not submit a
counteraffidavit. Nor did she file a declaration authenticating the
e-mail printout attached as an exhibit to her unverified
Complaint.
TrueAccord is a machine-learning and AI-driven 3rd- party debt
collection company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CaDIdf at no extra
charge.[CC]
TWIST BIOSCIENCE: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Peters Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twist Bioscience 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 19, 2024, that the
court decision on the Peters securities class suit dismissal motion
is pending in the federal court of Northern District of
California.
On December 12, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Peters v. Twist Bioscience Corporation, et al., Case No.
22-cv-08168 (N.D. Cal.) ("Securities Class Action")was filed in
federal court in the Northern District of California against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer (the "Defendants") alleging violations of federal
securities laws. The Securities Class Action's claims are based in
large part on allegations made in a report issued on November 15,
2022 by Scorpion Capital ("Scorpion Report") concerning, among
other things, the Company’s DNA chip technology and accounting
practices.
The initial complaint filed in the Securities Class Action alleges
that various statements that the defendants made between December
13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 were materially false and misleading
in light of the allegations in the Scorpion Report.
The plaintiff who initiated the lawsuit sought to represent a class
of shareholders who acquired shares of the Company’s common stock
between December 13, 2019 and November 14, 2022 and sought damages
as well as certain other costs.
On July 28, 2023, the Court appointed a new plaintiff, not the
original plaintiff who filed the case, as lead plaintiff in the
case and appointed a new law firm as lead counsel.
On October 11, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all
persons other than the Defendants who acquired the Company's
securities between December 20, 2018 and November 15, 2022.
The amended complaint alleges that certain statements regarding,
among other things, the Company's DNA products and accounting
practices were false and misleading.
This case remains in the preliminary stage.
Given the inherent uncertainty of litigation and the legal
standards that must be met, including class certification and
success on the merits, the Company cannot express an opinion on the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or on the amount or range of
any potential loss.
The Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves against the claims asserted against them and filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 6, 2023.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on November 13, 2024
and the Company is now awaiting the judge's decision.
Twist Bioscience Corporation is a synthetic biology company that
has developed a disruptive DNA synthesis platform.
TYCO FIRE: Class Settlement in Camden Suit Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF CAMDEN, et al., v.
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, individually and as successor in interest to
The Ansul Company, and CHEMGAURD, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02321-RMG
(D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel entered an order granting
Class Counsel's motion for final approval of class settlement and
final certification of the settlement class.
The Court also entered an order enjoining any Settlement Class
Member from asserting or pursuing any released claim against any
released person in any forum.
The Court finds that the putative Settlement Class meets this
requirement. Plaintiffs' claims arise from similar, if not
identical, allegations that Defendant knew of the environmental and
potential human health risks associated with exposure to PFAS, yet
continued to develop, manufacture, distribute, and sell PFAS and
products containing PFAS.
The preliminarily approved Settlement Class consists of
"every Active Public Water System in the United States of
America
that has one or more Impacted Water Sources as of the
Settlement
Date (May 15, 2024)."
The following are excluded from the Settlement Class:
(a) Any Public Water System that is owned by a State government
and lacks independent authority to sue and be sued.
(b) Any Public Water System that is owned by the federal
government and lacks independent authority to sue and be
sued
(c) Any privately owned well that provides water only to its
Owner's (or its owner's tenant's) individual household and
any
other system for the provision of water for human
consumption
that is not a Public Water System.
Tyco manufactures fire protection and general industrial
machinery.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 22, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UA0Xnd at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Bid to Seal Call Transcripts Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANTZ SAMSON, v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00175-MJP (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order granting in part and
denying in part UHC's motion to seal:
(1) transcripts of phone calls made to UHC members, and
(2) references to data designated as confidential by third-party
subpoena recipients.
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, the Court says.
By Dec. 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's
Motion to Seal is granted in part. 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. The clerk is ordered to provide
copies of this order to all counsel.
The Plaintiff Frantz Samson brings this case as a class action
against the Defendant 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.
UnitedHealthcare offers a full range of health benefits.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x4sF63 at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL: Court Dismisses Allmaras Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BROCK ALLMARAS, on behalf
of others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL &
ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01581-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo
Curiel entered an order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss
in its entirety.
-- The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
-- Accordingly, all of Plaintiff's claims, apart from Count Six,
which was dismissed under section 301, are subject to the CBA's
valid arbitration provision.
-- The Court therefore grants the motion to dismiss these claims
and
orders arbitration of the claims pursuant to the CBA's terms.
-- On Aug. 2, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against
University Mechanical & Engineering Contractors, Inc. on behalf
of
himself and "all current and former non-exempt employees who
worked for the Defendants in California at any time from four
years prior to the filing of this action through date of class
certification."
The Plaintiff's various claims hinge on the general allegation that
Defendant required "Plaintiff and the class members to complete
work while off-the-clock, without compensation."
The Defendant employed the Plaintiff as an Apprentice Plumber from
July 2023 to April 2024.
University Mechanical provides a full range of responsive
mechanical and HVAC services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W8LNrp at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2,
JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6, JOHN DOE 8, JOHN
DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, and JOHN DOE 12, DOE 13, DOE 14
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ("USF"), ANTHONY N. (AKA NINO)
GIARRATANO, and TROY NAKAMURA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move for an order on Jan. 30, 2025,
certifying the case as an issue class pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(c)(4).
The privacy interests at stake -- the same interests that continue
to necessitate Doe pleading for the Plaintiffs -- also strongly
favor a class action over individualized trials on all issues.
Finally, the relatively small size of the class will make
determination of individual issues manageable. Conversely, the
Defendants' conduct in this matter demonstrates that individual
trials on common issues would be unmanageable and unfair.
As the Court has seen firsthand, getting even basic discovery from
Defendants has required significant time and expense from
Plaintiffs. Forcing Plaintiffs—and all other class members—to
complete discovery (and try these common issues) alone would
quickly overwhelm and make financially unviable any one of their
individual cases—effectively rewarding Defendants for their
discovery misconduct
For over two decades, the USF knew its head baseball coach, Anthony
"Nino" Giarratano, and assistant baseball coach, Troy Nakamura,
created and coercively maintained a sexualized environment on USF's
Division I baseball team.
The Plaintiffs are thirteen former members of the USF baseball team
who suffered abuse by the Coaches, with USF's. All thirteen arrived
at USF as elite athletes at the start of promising baseball
careers
USF is a private Jesuit university in San Francisco, California.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 21, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FSxkKl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Selbin, Esq.
Michelle Lamy, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
mlamy@lchb.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: beth@feganscott.com
USC: Zarnowski Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IOLA FAVELL, SUE
ZARNOWSKI, MARIAH CUMMINGS, and AHMAD MURTADA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-03389-GW-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their
application for leave to file under seal certain confidential
documents, including an unredacted version of the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and thirty accompanying exhibits.
Pursuant to the Court's guidance at the Nov. 7, 2024 hearing on
Defendant's motions to exclude, the Plaintiffs understand that the
Court anticipates ordering provisional sealing prior to the
deadline for Defendant or 2U to file a declaration demonstrating
compelling reasons justifying sealing.
In the event that the Court orders provisional sealing pursuant to
that timeline, the Plaintiffs intend to file a motion to unseal at
an appropriate future time.
The Plaintiffs have reviewed and complied with the Stipulated
Protective Order in this case along with Local Rule 79-5.2.2.
The Plaintiffs do not agree that "the strong presumption of public
access in civil cases [is] overcome" for the exhibits that USC has
designated as confidential.
Because the underlying motion for class certification is "more than
tangentially related to the merits" of this case, only compelling
reasons can justify sealing the documents and excerpts.
University of Southern California is a private institution that was
founded in 1880.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0i9cTb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Anna C. Haac, Esq.
Shilpa Sadhasvisam, Esq.
Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
ssadhasivam@tzlegal.com
apersinger@tzlegal.com
ssoneji@tzlegal.com
- and -
Eric Rothschild, Esq.
Tyler Ritchie, Esq.
Chris Bryant, Esq.
Madeline Wiseman, Esq.
NATIONAL STUDENT LEGAL
DEFENSE NETWORK
1701 Rhode Island Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 734-7495
E-mail: eric@defendstudents.org
tyler@defendstudents.org
chris@defendstudents.org
madeline@defendstudents.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Mark D. Campbell, Esq.
Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
Nalani Lin Crisologo, Esq.
Holly Pauling Smith, Esq.
Taylor B. Markway, Esq.
SHOOK HARDY AND BACON LLP
2049 Century Park, East Suite 3000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 324-3412
Facsimile: (424) 204-9093
E-mail: mdcampbell@shb.com
mmallow@shb.com
ncrisologo@shb.com
hpsmith@shb.com
tmarkway@shb.com
VALVE CORP: Court Certifies Stream's AntiTrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Evans-Thirlwell of Rock Paper Shotgun reports that an
on-going lawsuit against Valve about Steam's "anti-competitive"
practices and especially, its infamous 30% per-game revenue cut,
has taken an interesting twist. According to a report, it's now a
class action suit that could benefit any developers or publishers
who have sold a game over the Steam store on or after 28th January
2017.
Here's the broad background: in April 2021, Overgrowth developers
Wolfire Games filed an antitrust lawsuit against Valve in the USA,
arguing that Steam uses its dominance of PC game sales to distort
the market and bury the competition, and in particular that the
company's base 30% cut of revenue from each video game sold on
Steam keeps overall game prices artificially high, with Valve
allegedly pressuring developers not to sell their games for lower
prices on stores with smaller commissioning fees.
"I believe that Valve is taking away gamers' freedom to choose how
much extra they are willing to pay to use their platform," Wolfire
founder David Rosen said at the time, as preserved by the
GameDiscoverCo newsletter. "I believe they are taking away
competing stores' freedom to compete by taking advantage of their
lower commission rates. I believe they are taking away developers'
freedom to use different pricing models."
As you'd expect, Valve pushed back on all this. In July 2021, the
company accused Wolfire of failing to supply evidence for their
allegations, while describing the 30% basic revenue cut as an
"industry standard" - a claim that, while not unfair, flies in the
face of both growing developer discontent and competitors such as
Epic Games Store and the Microsoft Store lowering their commission
fees in recent years.
Wolfire's lawsuit was eventually dismissed at Valve's request in
November 2021, with the judge in the case arguing that Wolfire had
not demonstrated that they or anybody else had been harmed by
Valve's management of Steam. The judge also observed that the fact
that competing stores like EGS have taken a smaller cut and failed,
nonetheless, to usurp Steam is evidence that developers and
publishers largely consider Steam's offering worth the price.
The judge further rejected Wolfire's somewhat bizarre assertion
that Valve has illegally tethered the Steam store (which sells the
games) to the Steam platform (which encompasses social networking
features, achievement tracking, game library management, and so
forth). The judge found that the Steam store and platform are, on
the contrary, a single product, with game sales funding the
platform's various 'free' features.
Wolfire were given 30 days to amend their case, address the
dismissal's criticisms and supply additional evidence. This they
did, adding sufficient context to the original claims that, in May
2022, the court found that aspects of the antitrust lawsuit could
move forward. In July 2022, a court order also confirmed that
Wolfire's suit would be combined with another, similar antitrust
lawsuit against Valve brought by multimedia production and VR
company Dark Catt Studios.
Fast forward to today, and GamesIndustry.biz reports that the
combined suit has been recategorised as a class action suit. A
class action suit is, broadly, one brought on behalf of a group of
absent people, going beyond those actually in court. In the event
that the plaintiffs win, everybody in that group of people stands
to benefit. There is an absolute world of finickity legal detail
within that hazy definition, mind you, even if you confine your
attention to the laws of a particular country.
According to GamesIndustry's James Batchelor, "the class action
will apply to any developers, publishers or individuals who paid a
commission to Valve in connection with a game sale -- referring to
the 30% cut the Steam firm takes from each purchase -- on or after
January 28, 2017." GI also report that the court have denied
Valve's request to exclude the testimony of a particular expert
called by Dark Catt and Wolfire -- the economist Dr Steven
Schwartz.
All of these legal wrangles form part of the larger, existential
industry wrangle about Valve and Steam's centrality to PC gaming.
My extremely Baby's First Monopoly take is that whatever your
feelings about specific aspects of Steam's service, or Valve in
general, no individual company should exert this much power over
the fortunes and overall culture of an artform. As such, I welcome
efforts such as Wolfire's to challenge Valve and Steam, even if I
may not agree with the detail of the suit in question.
What happens if Wolfire and Dark Catt win? According to my "PhD in
Googling" grasp of class action law, it potentially means that
Valve might have to compensate a large number of parties, adding up
to far more than if they'd had to compensate Wolfire and Dark Catt
alone. In turn, this might lead to a larger policy change at Valve,
which would have dramatic ramifications for PC game publishing as a
whole.
If you'd like to dive into the nitty-gritty of the legal
proceedings, the GameDiscoverCo newsletter is worth signing up to.
One question it raises is where, exactly, Wolfire and Dark Catt are
getting the money for their legal expenses, given the vast expense
of discovering and amassing evidence for a case like this. [GN]
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN: Federal Court Finalizes Wages Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Beef Central reports that the Federal Court has published its
verdict in a class action against the Western Australian government
for non-payment and underpayment of wages to Indigenous people who
worked on cattle stations.
In what has become known as "stolen wages" class action, the court
found between 8000 and 9500 Indigenous stock workers were underpaid
over a period between 11 December 1936 and 9 June 1972.
The WA Government agreed to pay $180m to settle the action.
The action was led by acclaimed artist Gooniyandi elder Mervyn
Street, with the proceeding alleging that he worked on pastoral
stations in the Kimberley from when he was around 10 years old,
starting on Louisa Downs which is his traditional country, and was
not paid wages until he was in his 30s.
With the case totalling $180m, Mr Street was awarded $45,000, with
the rest of the class entitled to $16,500 each. Shine Lawyers were
awarded $27.5m in court costs.
In the published findings, Justice Bernard Murphy said the
Indigenous people of the time were treated in a "grossly
discriminatory fashion" and compared non-Indigenous people.
"There is no dispute that over that 36-year period thousands of
Aboriginal men, women and children in Western Australia lived under
strict legislative controls and many worked for little or no pay,"
Justice Murphy said.
"For example, many Aboriginal men and boys worked on pastoral
stations as ringers, or stockmen, sometimes from dawn till dusk
seven days a week, and many Aboriginal women and girls worked as
household domestics and nannies.
"They were fed or given rations but provided little or no wages for
the work they performed. During that period, many Aboriginal
children who had been taken away from their parents and placed in
institutions run by the State or by a church, were required to work
before and after school and on weekends, and in some cases
full-time, in laundries, farms and other places attached to the
institutions."
Premier issues apology
WA premier Roger Cook issued an apology attached to the findings.
He said the stolen wages were a blight on successive government.
"Aboriginal men, women and children worked hard and made enormous
contributions to the economic development of this state. However,
they received only a fraction of their worth," Mr Cook said.
"The fact that this mistreatment existed for Aboriginal workers for
decades is a blight on the legacy of successive governments. The
fact that our laws facilitated these outcomes brings great shame.
For that, we are sorry."
Mr Cook said Indigenous people of the time worked under oppressive
conditions.
"In many cases, there was a threat of violence. The impacts of
these laws were felt across the state in a range of different work
settings," he said.
"The issues in this matter were complex. I acknowledge that each
individual Aboriginal person’s work history will have been
unique. However, as a community, many of these experiences were
common." [GN]
WHITEFISH, MT: Court Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFF BECK, individually;
AMY WEINBERG, individually; ZAC WEINBERG, individually; ALTA VIEWS,
LLC, individually; and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons and entities, v. CITY OF WHITEFISH, a Montana municipality,
and DOES 1-10, Case No. 9:22-cv-00044-KLD (D. Mont.), the Hon.
Judge Kathleen DeSoto entered a class settlement order as follows:
1. The Complaint filed in this Action alleges generally that the
City charged and collected unlawful water and wastewater
impact
fees from developing property owners over the period of Jan.
1,
2019 to Dec. 31, 2023.
2. Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, as part of the
Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally certified
the Settlement Class as:
"All persons and entities (and their heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns) identified from
impact
fee and property records as comprising the class defined in
the
Court's Sept. 29, 2023 certification order who were notified,
either directly or by publication, in January 2024 of this
class
action and their opportunity to be excluded from it and did
not
request exclusion during the notice and opt-out period
afforded
them."
Excluded from the Class is: any judge presiding over this
Action
and members of their direct family.
3. The Court affirms this definition of the Settlement Class for
purposes of this Final Approval Order and Judgment.
4. The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class in this
Action,
for settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and, in doing so, finds that,
consistent with its September 29, 2023 Order, the
requirements
for maintaining a class action have been met.
5. The Court has considered Class Counsel's request for Service
Award Payments in the amount of $3,500.00 to be made to each
Named Plaintiff. The Court approves this request as fair and
reasonable and awards $3,500.00 to Named Plaintiffs/class
representatives Jeff Beck, Amy Weinberg, Zac Weinberg, and
Alta
Views, LLC, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.
6. The Court has considered Class Counsel's request for a Fee
Award
and Costs in the amount of $466,666.67, representing
one-third
(approximately 33%) of the Settlement Fund, plus actual costs
of
litigation not to exceed $175,000.00. The Court hereby
approves
this request as fair and reasonable and awards $466,666.67 in
fees and up to $175,000.00 in reimbursement of actual costs
to
Class Counsel, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=va79jP at no extra
charge.[CC]
WOODMAN'S FOOD: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Brief by Dec. 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE WYNGAARD, v.
WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00493-PP (E.D. Wis.),
Hon. Judge Pamela Pepper entered an order denying the plaintiffs'
Civil Local Rule 7(h) expedited, non-dispositive motion for leave
to exceed the page and fact limits set in the Local Rules.
The court directs that by no later than the end of the day on Dec.
13, 2024, the plaintiffs must file an amended brief in support of
their partial summary judgment motion that complies with the page
limits in Civil L.R. 56(b)(8), along with an amended Statement of
Proposed Material Facts that complies with Civil L.R. 56(b)(1)(C).
The court encourages the parties to stipulate to facts. Stipulated
facts will not count against either party’s allotment of proposed
facts.
The court also entered an order that the Defendant must file its
materials in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment no later than thirty days after the plaintiffs file their
amended materials in support of the motion. The plaintiffs must
file their reply materials, if any, within fourteen (14) days of
the defendant's opposition materials.
A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V6eRPd at no extra
charge.[CC]
*********
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 ***