/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 10, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 247 Headlines 121FIFTEEN DIAMONDS: Court Grants Garnishee's Motion to Quash 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Awards McNelley's Counsel $34K in Fees & Costs ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Thompson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Hart Says ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Dec. 20 Deadline to Oppose Dismissal Sought AMAZON RETAIL: Chicas Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Lawsuit Obtains Class Certification AMERICA'S PLUMBING: McNutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AMERICAN BANKERS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Dec. 10 AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Block Overcharging Class Suit Denied AMERICAN GOLF: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Paints AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Long Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access ANN T. TATJE: Plaintiffs' Motions in Duhon, et al. Suit Denied ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Bobnar Wins Partial Summary Judgment ATHENA BITCOIN: Removes S.M. Class Suit to N.D. Ohio ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Hickman Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois BCBSM INC: Court Grants Settlement Class Counsel's Fee Request BELONG HOME: Gupta Suit Removed to N.D. California BIG Y FOODS: Belozerov Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. BIO-LAB INC: Hounds Town Sues Over Contaminated Air BIOLAB INC: Davidson Sues Over Toxic Fumes Due to Fire BLACK BOX SECURITY: Calvera Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages BLACKBAUD INC: Court Remands 39 of 40 Atlas Suits to Superior Court BLOCKCHAIN COINVESTORS: Sued Over Attempt to Appropriate Assets BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Dougherty Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina BRAVANTE FARM: Faces Santiago Class Suit in Cal. Super. BRITISH COLUMBIA: Female Cops Sue Over Gender Discrimination C&S LOGISTICS: Court Remands Tercero Case to State Court CASCADE LIVING: Collin Suit Removed from State Court to E.D. Cal. CAVENDISH FARMS: Filonek's Inc. Sues Over Illegal Scheme CAVENDISH FARMS: Gladys' Sues Over Unlawful Fixing of Prices CEFCO STORES: Etienne Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging CHIQUITA CANYON: Court Narrows Claims in Howse, et al. Suit CINMAR LLC: Greben Sues Over Untrue or Misleading Statements CITIBANK NA: Court Narrows Claims in Letidas Logistics Lawsuit CLOUDERA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit CMS-NY/PA LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Smalt Suit Alleges COMMUNITY CLINIC: Faces Johnson Class Suit in D. Hawaii CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to N.D. West Virginia CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania CSX TRANSPORTATION: Gales Suit Transferred to W.D. New York CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CYBER NOW: Unlawfully Withheld Instructors' Wages, Clifton Alleges DELAWARE: Franchise Group Files Adversary Proceeding to D. Delaware DENTSPLY SIRONA: North Collier Sues Over 28% Drop of Stock Price DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER: Richards Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct. DOHMAN AKERLUND: Hauf Sues Over Failure to Secure Information DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Banuelos Suit to N.D. of Calif. DOWN RIGHT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, DelaCruz Alleges DRUM CONNECTION: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website E.I. DU PONT: Plaintiffs Must Refile Bid to Certify Class EL RANCHERO: Faces Santiago Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. EMIRATES: Seeks More Time to File Discovery ETZ HAYIM: Class Settlement in Cimino Suit Has Final Approval FARMERS UNION: Evans Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. FARMERS UNION: McAtee Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. FARMERS UNION: Vanspyker Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. FILMSUPPLY LLC: Trimboli Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas FOUR SEASONS: Shalakhti Sues Over Unpaid OT & Breach of Contract GATEWAYCDI INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GENE BY GENE: Saathoff Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois GENTING NEW YORK: Seeks to Depose Roberts & Shaw GO NEW YORK: Court Refuses to Certify Order for Appeal in Teta Suit GOOGLE LLC: Maurice Blackburn Probes Anti-Competitive Conduct GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shelton Suit Removed to C.D. California GREEN ANT: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied H. MART COMPANIES: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HABIT RESTAURANTS: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages HAMPDEN COUNTY, MA: Kirchner Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. HAPPY TIMES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Picon Says HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Kent's EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court HERSHEY COMPANY: Mohamed Suit Removed to C.D. California HOME PARTNERS: Court Narrows Claims in Sheard, et al. Lawsuit HOME PARTNERS: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Denied in Part IME RESOURCES: Whips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois IRON MOUNTAIN: Melendez Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties J DAVID TAX: Iverson's Bid to Produce Information Granted in Part JAGR LLC: Zhang Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York JERSEY FIRESTOP: Class Certification Denied in Covachuela Suit JRA TRADEMARK: Martinez-Graciano Suit Removed to C.D. California LABOR SOURCE: Bid to Reconsider Sept. 23 Class Cert Order Denied LAMB WESTON: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, BW-SS Suit Says LAMPO GROUP: Hood Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida LANDS' END: Spector Suit Removed to D. Arizona LASIKMD USA: Ramirez Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information LENS.COM INC: Fitzpatrick Suit Transferred to D. Nevada LENS.COM INC: Two Claims in Martin Suit Transferred to Nevada Court LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Fishel Suit Over Improper Business Conduct LINKEDIN CORPORATION: L. W. A. Suit Removed to N.D. California LITTLE GREENE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Jones Claims LIVE HYDRATION: Agnone Sues Over Website's Barriers to the Blind LOREES LITTLE: Faces Rhyne Employment Suit in Cal. Super. LOWE'S HOME: Gershfeld Balks at Defective Wpstbrass Air Gap Cap LUSH HANDMADE: Keskinen Suit Removed to C.D. California M.R.V.L. INVESTMENTS: Settles Underpayments Class Suit for $19.25MM MARCUS SAMUELSSON: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sumlin Claims MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC: Carey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for January 24 MATCH GROUP: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY: Taylor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois MERCK & CO: Gardiner Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Talc Products MERRILL LYNCH: Bid to Seal Confidential Info in Vallely Granted MG FREESITES: Plaintiffs File Class Notice, Creates Claims Website MICROSOFT CORP: Faces First UK Class Action Over AI Data MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Action Over Hair Oil Side Effects MK DRAYAGE: Seeks to Strike Vasquez Class Certification Bid MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Krayzman Says MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Namata Files Suit in N.D. Texas MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Niman Bid for Class Certification Tossed MORTGAGEPROS LLC: Chen Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Burnett Seeks Settlement Approval NESTLE PURINA: Most Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois NEVADA: Olteanu Must File Complete Amended Complaint by Dec. 23 NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Submit Memorandum in Support of Settlement NEWARK GROUP: Motion for Leave to Amend in Ryan, et al Suit Denied NEWREZ LLC: Moody Files Suit in N.D. Georgia NOBULL LLC: Jones Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website NORDSEC LTD: Court Dismisses Hanscom Class Action OPTICS FORCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: O'Hara Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Operators PDR NETWORK: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Carlton Suit PEACOCK TV: Class Settlement in Winston Suit Has Final Approval PHH MORTGAGE: Knapp FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Oregon PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Carter-Shabazz Civil Rights Case PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Fullington Prison Civil Rights Case PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays McKenzie Prison Civil Rights Case PILLOW CUBE: Hogan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid PILLOW CUBE: Plaintiffs Must Renew Class Cert Bid by Feb. 14, 2025 POST MEDS: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Stays Allen Class Suit PUNDIR GROUP INC: Gamino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PURPOSE FUNDING: Moyer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida RECKITT BENCKISER: Modified CMO Entered in Beckles Class Suit RENTOKIL INITIAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Suit Alleges RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Wright Sues Over Civil Rights Violation ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Hammonds Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII RON HIBACHI: Court OK's Settlement Agreement in Chen Suit RSCR CALIFORNIA: Chevalier Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. SABA UNIVERSITY: Court Decertifies Class of Enrollees SAFEWAY INC: Mislabels Avocado Oil Products, Smith Suit Says SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY: Cantave Settlement Gets Final Court Okay SAINT JOSEPH'S: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Cantave Suit SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Barrett, et al. Suit SAZERAC COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Advertising SCP DISTRIBUTORS: Phillips Sues Over Employment Law Violation SECURE PARKING: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Use of Information SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Larios Sues to Recover Full Compensation SET FORTH INC: Bellefeuille Files Suit in N.D. Illinois SET FORTH: McCluskey Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info SET FORTH: Ossler Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info SEYBOTH TEAM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Bousso & Tagawa Securities Suits STANCE INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website STARBUCKS CORP: Union Funds' Lead Plaintiff Motion Granted STERLING FARM: Enderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Gibbs Suit Removed to S.D. California TARGET CORP: Payton Sues Over iPhones Deceptive Marketing THEO CHOCOLATE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 20, 2025 TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Certify Class Action TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Silberstein Sues Over Alleged FDCA Violation UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supreme Court OKs Taxi Drivers' Suit Settlement ULTA INC: Class Settlement in Chan Suit Gets Final Court Nod UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims US POSTAL SERVICE: Ewings Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime USC: Favell Suit Seeks Leave to File Confidential Docs Under Seal USHEALTH ADVISORS: Williams TCPA Suit in S.D. Georgia VAJIRA SAMARARATNE: Order to Show Cause Issued in Morales Suit VGW HOLDINGS: Removes Saulny Class Suit to S.D. Miss. VISA INC: Faces Cai Class Action Suit Over Corrective Disclosure VISIONS TREATMENT: Chaimungkla Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages WESTERN DIGITAL: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Reset to Jan. 16, 2025 WORLD SPA: Layne Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Online Store YAHOO! INC: Settles Data Breach Class Suit in Canada for $20-Mil. YOUNG CONSULTING: Martin Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI YOUNG CONSULTING: Montero Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ********* 121FIFTEEN DIAMONDS: Court Grants Garnishee's Motion to Quash ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as TIMOTHY SIMMS, Plaintiff, v. 121FIFTEEN DIAMONDS, LLC, d/b/a/ DIAMOND NEXUS Defendant, v. LAUTREC CORPORATION a/k/a FOREVER COMPANIES, INC., Garnishee, Case No. 4:23-CV-813 HEA (E.D. Mo.), Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Garnishee's Motion to Quash. Plaintiff opposes the motion. On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant 12Fifteen Diamonds, LLC. On September 19, 2023, the Clerk of Court entered an Entry of Default against 12Fifteen. On February 1, 2024, the Court entered a Default Judgment against 12Fifteen on Plaintiff's Second Claim for Relief in the amount of $301,500.00. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Application for Writ of Garnishment seeking to issue the Garnishment on Garnishee, Forever Companies, Inc. The Court issued the Writ of Execution of Garnishment on June 18, 2024. The Garnishment listed a return date of July 31, 2024. Forever brought this Motion to Quash the Garnishment on July 30,2024. Garnishee argues the Court does not have jurisdiction over it to enforce the garnishment. It has provided evidence that it is located outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Eastern District of Missouri. In Response, Plaintiff directs the Court to Mem'l Hosp. of Martinsville v. D'Oro, No. 4:10MC00001, 2011 WL 2679593 (W.D. Va. July 8, 2011) for the proposition that the location of wages is where a garnishment proceeding should be filed. As Garnishee correctly points out, however, it is a corporate entity and Plaintiff is not attempting to garnish wages, the Court finds. The Court is of the opinion that because the proposed garnishee is not located in this district, it has no authority to order that the company pay money into the Court or to Plaintiff, even if it is indeed indebted to Defendant. The usual procedure is for the judgment creditor to register a judgment in a separate federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963 and then seek to enforce the judgment within that district. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p4WxQP 7-ELEVEN INC: Court Awards McNelley's Counsel $34K in Fees & Costs ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion to recover attorneys' fees and costs the lawsuit titled THOMAS MCNELLEY AND KAREN PARIS, Plaintiffs v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-10046-ADB (D. Mass.). The Defendant opposes the motion and disputes the reasonableness of the amount requested. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the motion is granted in part and denied in part, and the Court awards $34,459.71 in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff McNelley and Co-Plaintiff Karen Paris brought this action against the Defendant alleging that 7-Eleven discriminated against McNelley and Paris because of their disabilities, in violation of the Massachusetts public accommodation law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272, Section 98, and the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. Following a trial, the jury found the Defendant liable for discrimination in a place of public accommodation solely as to McNelley and that the Defendant had violated Chapter 93A, but had not done so willfully or knowingly. The jury awarded McNelley $5,000 in emotional distress damages and $15,000 in punitive damages and awarded no damages to Plaintiff Paris. The Plaintiffs' counsel initially filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs on April 13, 2024, which the Defendant opposed on April 29, 2024. The Court denied the motion without prejudice on the basis that the documents submitted by the Plaintiffs' counsel included fees and costs associated with representing both McNelley and Paris, when only McNelley prevailed. In response to the Court's order, the Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a renewed motion on July 7, 2024, and the Defendant submitted a supplemental opposition on July 22, 2024. The Counsel, on behalf of Plaintiff McNelley, now seeks fees for the work of Attorneys Walter Jacobs ("W. Jacobs") and Alexandria Jacobs ("A. Jacobs"). In support of the request, W. Jacobs submitted an affidavit and one single invoice outlining the fees incurred between Sept. 8, 2020, and April 1, 2024. W. Jacobs' hourly rate is $400 and A. Jacobs' is $325, and combined both attorneys billed over 150 hours in the course of representing McNelley. In response to the Court's order to supplement the request for attorneys' fees and costs with a more detailed breakdown of fees incurred in representing McNelley, counsel for the Plaintiffs reduced the total amount of fees/costs sought in the original fee petition from $69,748.37 to $53,932.79. Specifically, W. Jacobs subtracted $1,520 in legal fees devoted solely to Paris' claims and further reduced the overall fee request by 21.05% to reflect as reasonably as possible the time devoted to McNelley's claims for which he prevailed. Mr. McNelley's counsel now seeks an award of $53,616.92 in attorneys' fees and $315.87 for costs, for a total of $53,932.79. The Defendant challenges the request on the following grounds: it (1) fails to provide detailed billing descriptions sufficient to allow the determination of a lodestar amount; (2) seeks to improperly recover fees incurred in separate proceedings before the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"); (3) includes Attorney A. Jacobs' legal fees for attending the trial but whose role in the trial is unclear as she "provided no argument to the Court and questioned no witnesses"; and (4) still requests fees accrued from litigating Plaintiff Paris' and McNelley's unsuccessful claims despite the revised calculation in the renewed motion. Judge Burroughs notes that during the course of the litigation, however, Plaintiff McNelley asserted additional claims that were ultimately unsuccessful, including negligence, disability discrimination and retaliation under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B, violation of 940 Mass. Code Reg. 316, and declaratory relief in connection to each claim. Separately, the lawsuit was initially brought as a class action, although the Plaintiffs did not move for or obtain class certification. In sum, Judge Burroughs explains, out of a total seven claims, McNelley prevailed on two. Nonetheless, the unsuccessful claims, liberally construed, are sufficiently intertwined with the successful claims as they arose from a common core of facts. That is, they all concerned "a common core of facts regarding" the Defendant's actions which impacted McNelley's ability to access and move in the store on account of his disability. Judge Burroughs points out that McNelley, however, is not entitled to recover any fees related to costs in pursuing the class action, given that he did not even move for class certification. Based on the invoice submitted, McNelley spent a total of $160 on legal fees related to the class certification. In the revised request for attorneys' fees, McNelley deducted 21.05% in legal fees on the basis that out of 133 paragraphs in the Complaint, only 28 paragraphs (that is, 21.05%) refer to Plaintiff Paris' hearing disability. The Defendant contends that because only McNelley prevailed on his claims, the Court should deduct 50% of the total legal fees. Although the Court is not satisfied that a 50% split is appropriate here given how closely intertwined McNelley and Paris' claims are, it is also not persuaded by McNelley's approach, which does not adequately reflect that only McNelley's legal relationship with the Defendant was altered. The Court will, therefore, deduct an additional 10% from the claimed attorneys' fees in the amended filing. The Defendant further asserts that McNelley's fee request improperly contains entries starting on Sept. 8, 2020, when this action did not commence until a year later, on Sept. 27, 2021. Specifically, the Defendant argues that legal fees incurred in the MCAD proceeding, which preceded the instant action, should be excluded from any lodestar amount. The Court observes that Chapter 151B, Section 4 requires that an aggrieved party file a timely complaint with MCAD before bringing an action to court. Accordingly, because MCAD filings are a prerequisite to a discrimination claim under Chapter 151B, Section 4, the hours spent on MCAD proceedings may appropriately and reasonably be included in a fee request, Judge Burroughs opines. In relation to Chapter 272, Section 98 claims, however, Judge Burroughs notes that district courts are divided on whether the statute similarly requires exhaustion of remedies before MCAD. In light of the uncertainty as to whether a public accommodation claim must first be brought before MCAD, and, more importantly, given that Chapter 151B and Chapter 272, Section 98 claims are sufficiently interconnected, the Court is not persuaded that an additional subtraction of attorneys' fees is warranted or feasible. Beyond the deduction of $1,520.00, the Court, therefore, leaves W. Jacobs' request for legal fees prior to the state-court proceeding intact. In sum, in order to adequately reflect that a prevailing party is only able to recuperate legal fees on successful claims, the Court will deduct all legal fees related to the class certification which total $160 and subtract 10% from the claimed attorneys' fees. Upon review of the time records submitted by McNelley's counsel, the Court will not award fees associated with A. Jacobs' billing entries related to her trial attendance. Judge Burroughs points out, among other things, that McNelley offered no information from which the Court could evaluate the reasonableness of A. Jacobs' rate, including that the Court lacks basic resume information, such as how long she has practiced law and her relative seniority within the firm. The fees may well have been compensable had counsel taken the time to explain her role, but given the paucity of information, the Court will subtract the fees associated with A. Jacobs' trial attendance, which totals $4,680. Separately, the Defendant urges the Court to reduce McNelley's fee request because the billing entries lack specificity. The Court notes that the invoice submitted by McNelley provides mostly vague descriptions, such as "email from client," "email to client," or "phone call with client," which offer little guidance in assessing the reasonableness of the McNelley's request. Given the lack of detail and use of generic billing entries, the Court will apply an additional across-the-board lodestar reduction of 20%. Given the lack of detail in the single invoice submitted, the Court would be well within its rights to discount the fees further but declines to do so given that the overall reasonableness of the total legal fees accrued in this case and the Court's interest in not disincentivizing counsel from taking on these types of cases. Judge Burroughs notes that the Defendant seemingly does not challenge attorney W. Jacobs' proposed rate ($400), and considering his education, credentials, and relevant professional experience, the Court finds no reason to dispute the reasonableness of his hourly rate. As to Attorney A. Jacobs' hourly rate ($325), the Defendant similarly does not contest the reasonableness of her rate or the fact that she worked on the case. Accordingly, for the reasons noted, the Court rules that McNelley's motion is denied in part and granted in part. The Plaintiff will be awarded $34,459.71 in attorneys' fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ve9993m from PacerMonitor.com. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Thompson Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lakeena Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2024LA00000814 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12283. The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty based on a data incident involving ALEC's network on or around August 2, 2024 (the "Incident").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Dmitry Shifrin, Esq. POLSINELLI PC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 819-1900 Facsimile: (312) 819-1910 Email: DShifrin@Polsinelli.com - and - John C. Cleary, Esq. 600 Third Avenue, 42nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 413-2837 Facsimile: (212) 684-0197 Email: john.cleary@polsinelli.com - and - Shundra C. Manning, Esq. 501 Commerce Street, Suite 1300 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 259-1567 Facsimile: (615) 259-1573 Email: scmanning@polsinelli.com AGC CHEMICALS: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Hart Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKLIN HART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-05764-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 9, 2024) is an action resulting from Plaintiff's exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein, says the suit. AGC Chemicals Americas, Inc. manufactures specialty chemicals. The Company offers glass, electronic displays, and chemical products including resins, water and oil repellants, greenhouse films, silica additives, and various fluorointermediates. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric W. Cracken, Esq. Steven D. Davis, Esq. TORHOERMAN LAW LLC 210 S. Main Street Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-4400 Facsimile: (618) 656-4401 ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Dec. 20 Deadline to Oppose Dismissal Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE’ANDRE EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; SCOTT ABBEY; and all others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; YESENIA SANCHEZ, SHERIFF; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' oppositions to Defendants' motions to dismiss shall be due Dec. 20, 2024. 2. Defendants' replies in support of the motions to dismiss shall be due Jan. 10, 2025. 3. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall be due 30 days after the Court resolves Defendants' motions to dismiss. The parties have conferred and agree that, in light of the holidays and other pending commitments, they propose a brief extension of the briefing schedule for the motions to dismiss. Extending the deadlines associated with Defendants' motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' upcoming motion for class certification would affect only the current Dec. 12, 2024 deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Oct. 8, 2024, this Court held a Case Management Conference at which it set a Nov. 8, 2024 deadline for Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint "to conform their pleading to the decisions of this Court and of the Ninth Circuit"; and a Dec. 12, 2024 deadline for Plaintiffs to file a renewed motion for class certification. On Oct. 22, 2024, the Court entered the parties' stipulation and order dismissing with prejudice plaintiffs' Labor Code claims. Alameda County is home to over 1.5 million people living in 14 incorporated cities as well as in six unincorporated communities and rural areas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=84I1Qj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Dan Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA 475 14th St 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-1200 The Defendants are represented by: Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq. Isaac D. Chaput, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Salesforce Tower 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 San Francisco, CA 94105-2533 Telephone: (415) 591-6000 Facsimile: (415) 591-6091 E-mail: clannin@cov.com ichaput@cov.com - and - Gilbert J. Tsai, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 777 S. Figueroa StreetSuite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 AMAZON RETAIL: Chicas Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jonathan Chicas, an individual; and Darrius Parrish, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMAZON RETAIL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV24915 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10306. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege nine causes of action against Amazon Retail: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees; Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices; and Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Blas, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 Email: lblas@gibsondunn.com - and - Megan Cooney, Esq. Katie M. Magallanes, Esq. Jessica M. Pearigen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 3161 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949.451.3800 Facsimile: 949.451.4220 Email: mcooney@gibsondunn.com kmagallanes@gibsondunn.com jpearigen@gibsondunn.com - and - Joseph R. Rose, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3715 Phone: 415.393.8277 Facsimile: 415.374.8422 Email: jrose@gibsondunn.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Martinez Lawsuit Obtains Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as ESTEFANY MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 22-00502-BAH (D. Md.). Plaintiff Estefany Martinez brings this action against Amazon.com Services LLC, alleging on a class wide basis, that she and putative class members have worked compensable time under Maryland law for Defendant for which they have not been paid. Pending before the Court are two motions: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, and (2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a former warehouse employee of Amazon, seeks certification of this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all individuals who, between November 18, 2018, and March 31, 2020, were employed by Defendant as hourly non-exempt workers at: its BWI2 (2010 Broening Highway, Baltimore, MD 21224), DCA1 (1700 Sparrows Point Boulevard, Sparrows Point, MD 21219), and MDT2 (600 Principio Parkway West, North East, MD 21901) Maryland fulfillment centers. Plaintiff challenges the legality of standardized pay policies that Amazon has imposed on all putative class members under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, and under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Amazon's practice of requiring mandatory security screenings at the end of each workday while failing to compensate employees for the time associated with the screening, such as "time spent waiting in security lines and going through the security screening process." It is undisputed that Defendant did not compensate workers for this time. Rather, Amazon asserts that this time is simply not compensable under Maryland Wage Laws. Defendant primarily argues that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, predominance, and superiority requirements for class certification. The Court turns to the Rule 23 class certification requirements and finds that they are met in this case. Having certified a class, the Court appoints as class counsel the law firms of Joseph, Greenwald, & Laake, PA. and Winebrake & Santillo, LLC. Plaintiff's Motion is granted. The question of whether a de minimis exception exists for claims under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law is certified to the Supreme Court of Maryland. The District Court reserves decision on Defendant's summary judgment motion until the state court resolves the de minimis question of law. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZgkRMC AMERICA'S PLUMBING: McNutt Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMERICA'S PLUMBING CO., INC., et al. The case is styled as Thomas B. McNutt, on behalf of all others similarly situated employees v. America's Plumbing Co., Inc., Bryan Hopkins, Kelly Hopkins, Does 1-100, Does 1-100, Case No. 24CV020622 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Oct. 11, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." America's Plumbing Company -- https://plumbingsacramento.com/ -- is a home town plumber located in Bloomington, Illinois and serves Bloomington, Normal, and all of McLean County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Rodriguez, Esq. JUSTICE LAW PARTNERS, A PROF. CORP. 106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St, # 412 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3805 Phone: 213-280-8908 Email: justicelawpartners@gmail.com AMERICAN BANKERS: Oral Argument on Class Cert Bid Set for Dec. 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brendan Dahl, v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Case No. 3:23-cv-08584-DLR (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Rayes entered an order regarding class certification oral argument topics as follows: -- At issue is Defendant American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida's ("American Bankers") motion to deny class certification. -- The motion is scheduled for oral argument on Dec. 10, 2024. -- To facilitate a productive argument, the Court offers the parties its tentative thoughts on the issues presented, along with some questions the parties should prepare to address. The dispute arises from actual cash value ("ACV) payments American Bankers, an insurer, made to Dahl, an insured, and a putative class of similarly situated insureds to compensate for losses to property covered by their policies. Dahl alleges that American Bankers calculated its ACV payments to him and the putative class members using a "replacement cost less depreciation" ("RCLD") methodology. When American Bankers calculated those ACV benefits, it "withheld costs for both materials and future repair labor as depreciation." Dahl alleges that, in so doing, American Bankers breached the policy by paying him less than he was entitled to receive. The Court tentatively agrees with American Bankers that Dahl's claim is, at bottom, a valuation dispute within the ambit of the appraisal provision. And although American Bankers's seems to have failed to timely invoke the appraisal process as to Dahl's individual claim, the FAC contains no plausible allegation that American Bankers failed to timely invoke this appraisal process as to the claims of yet-unidentified putative class members. American Bankers provides specialty credit-related insurance products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 3, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ByI1l5 at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICAN EXPRESS: Bid to Block Overcharging Class Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella of Reuter reports that American Express has failed to persuade a federal judge in Rhode Island to block a proposed class action accusing the financial industry giant of overcharging thousands of merchants for credit and debit card fees on consumer transactions. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy for now rejected, opens new tab arguments by American Express that the merchants should be forced to pursue their claims individually rather than sue as a class. Ten small merchants alleged in their lawsuit in March that American Express is violating U.S. antitrust law through its use of "non-discrimination provisions" that prohibit businesses from encouraging customers to use payment cards with lower transaction fees. American Express did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday, December 2. Lawyers for the plaintiffs welcomed the ruling in a statement. "The court's order means that these small businesses will finally be able to have their day in court," the attorneys said. The merchants had valid arbitration agreements with American Express, and more than 5,000 had sought to arbitrate their claims against the company before the lawsuit was filed. But American Express balked at paying more than $17 million in filing fees for the so-called mass arbitration, McElroy said, and so an arbitrator closed the proceeding for the company's nonpayment. Responding to the lawsuit, American Express urged McElroy to strike the merchants' class action claims and also to compel the allegations to be arbitrated. "For over a decade, courts across this country -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court -- have held that Amex's arbitration provisions with merchants are valid and must be enforced," the company argued. American Express in a court filing, opens new tab said the merchants "engineered an administrative closure of their individual arbitrations." It denied that it was refusing to pay filing fees. McElroy has not yet ruled on whether to certify the case as a class action comprising as many as 5,155 merchants. The merchants' lawsuit seeks a declaration from the judge that American Express' practices have violated federal antitrust law. Such a ruling would let individual merchants pursue future monetary damages claims. The case is 5-Star General Store v. American Express Co, U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, No. 1:24-cv-00106. For plaintiffs: Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler; Scott Harris and Peggy Wedgworth of Milberg Coleman Phillips Bryson Grossman; Tracey Kitzman of Song; and Robert Cohen of Law Offices of Robert W. Cohen For defendant: Peter Barbur and Kevin Orsini of Cravath, Swaine & Moore [GN] AMERICAN GOLF: Perez Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Federico Palomera Perez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. AMERICAN GOLF CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 24LBCV02212 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, meal period violations, rest break violations, failure to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and covid period/benefits violations, unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages, failure to timely pay wages at separation, wage statement violations, misclassification, failure to pay regular rate of pay, failure to pay owed tips & collected service charges, Unfair Business Practices, pursuant to Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Wage Orders. The Defendants were required to pay Plaintiff as well as other non-exempt employees overtime pay as follows: For works in excess of 8 hours in one workday, no less than one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 8 hours up to and including 12 hours in one workday. For work in excess of 12 hours in one workday, no less than twice the employee's regular rate of pay. For work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek, no less than one and one half times the employee's regular rate of pay for all hours in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants, and each of them, willfully, knowingly, and intentionally failed to calculate and compensate the Plaintiff the overtime wages per Labor Code and/or applicable Industrial Wage Order. Specifically, Defendants unfairly rounded the Plaintiff's work hours and/or otherwise failed to include all the time the Plaintiff worked in calculating the wages that were owed for each pay period. Hence, Plaintiff was denied overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a cook to work as a non-exempt hourly wage employee in the State of California. The Defendants operate 40 golf courses in premier golfing destinations, including: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Orange County, San Diego and in the Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Paints ------------------------------------------------------ Beverly Braga, writing for Yahoo! Autos, reports that a sad but true reality is that a staggering 80 percent of vehicles sold are sheathed in grayscale colors: white, black, silver, and gray -- in that order. White takes the color(less) cake with a 34-percent share of the pie. With that many white cars being purchased, you'd think the finishes would be of the premium high-tech paint variety. Honda owners feel the opposite is true and have sued the automaker for low-quality paintwork. A class-action suit was filed this month against American Honda Motor Company alleging defective paint was used in 2013 and newer model-year Honda and Acura vehicles. Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the lawsuit alleges that some white paints are so poor that the finishes "inevitably fail, peel, delaminate (that is, the separate paint layers separate due to adhesion issues), bubble, and flake." Indeed, there are examples all over the internet on places like the Ody Club owner forum and Reddit. [GN] AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Long Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access -------------------------------------------------------------- SEAN LONG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ANNIE MAC HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-10813 (D.N.J., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within its network systems following a data breach between August 21, 2024, and August 23, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. American Neighborhood Mortgage Acceptance Company, LLC, doing business as Annie Mac Home Mortgage, is a home mortgage company based in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: lverderame@edelson-law.com medelson@edelson-law.com ANN T. TATJE: Plaintiffs' Motions in Duhon, et al. Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled on the motions filed by the plaintiffs in the case captioned as KATHY R. DUHON, ET AL. VERSUS ANN T. TATJE, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 90-1669 (E.D. La.): 1) Motion for Further Relief, Discovery, and Evidentiary Hearing; and 2) Motion to Substitute Named Plaintiffs Both motions are opposed. The motions were filed by counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and local counsel, Mr. Gideon Carter, on behalf of "Plaintiffs," who purport to be the original plaintiffs (Hermon Harris, Jr., et al. ) from a desegregation case that was first initiated in 1963 -- over 61 years ago -- and resulted in certain consent decrees/orders that remain in effect today. But given that no person who was a plaintiff in the 1963 case is participating in the matters currently before the Court, and given that no new plaintiff has been added to the Harris case since 1963, the St. John the Baptist School Board has raised legitimate questions about who exactly is driving the recent resurgence of litigation in this case. The docket sheet includes the United States of America as a plaintiff-intervenor in the case but the United States is not a signatory to the pending motions and has not assumed an active role in recent events. The Court denies the Motion to Substitute Named Plaintiffs because the proposed new plaintiffs do not have legal standing to pursue the relief being sought. Granting the motion would be futile. The Motion for Further Relief, Discovery, and Evidentiary Hearing Motion for Further Relief, Discovery, and Evidentiary Hearing is denied as moot, and alternatively denied without prejudice at this time because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to proceed. Even if some aspect of the LDF's Motion for Further Relief, Discovery, and Evidentiary Hearing survived mootness, the Court remains persuaded that it lacks subject jurisdiction to proceed to act on the motion because the LDF filed the Motion for Further Relief, Discovery, and Evidentiary Hearing without having an actual plaintiff before the Court. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=14mZSa ASTRAZENECA PHARMA: Bobnar Wins Partial Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN BOBNAR, v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, Case No. 1:22-cv-02258-PAB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Pamela Barker entered an order: -- granting Bobnar's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and -- granting in part and denying in part AstraZeneca's motion for Summary Judgment. On Dec. 15, 2022, Bobnar filed a Complaint alleging six Counts against AstraZeneca: -- Religious Discrimination/Failure to Accommodate in Violation of O.R.C. Chapter 4112 and Title VII (Count One); -- Religious Discrimination/Retaliation in Violation of O.R.C. Chapter 4112 and Title VII (Count Two); -- Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Count Three); -- Family and Medical Leave Act Interference (Count Four); and -- Breach of Contract and/or Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of O.R.C. 4113.15 (Counts Five and Six). Bobnar began employment with AstraZeneca as a Diabetes Sales Specialist in February 2014. Bobnar was promoted to Respiratory Specialty Representative in November 2017, and then to Biologics Sales Specialist in May 2021. AstraZeneca is a global pharmaceutical company that, in pertinent part, markets and sells pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EsB8ED at no extra charge.[CC] ATHENA BITCOIN: Removes S.M. Class Suit to N.D. Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of S.M., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATHENA BITCOIN, INC.; HEIGHTS TOBACCO, INC.; and HEIGHTS MECHANICAL, INC., Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Court of Common Pleas of the State of Ohio, County of Cuyahoga (Case No. CV 24 103506) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on Oct. 9, 2024. The clerk of court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case No. :24-cv-01755-DAR. The case is assigned to Judge David A. Ruiz. Athena Bitcoin Global operates as a digital asset technology company. The Company mines cryptocurrencies, with a focuses on the blockchain ecosystem and the generation of digital assets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. DANNLAW 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Telephone: (513) 645-3488 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: bflick@dannlaw.com - and - Marita I. Ramirez, Esq. DANN LAW 15000 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (614) 500-4395 Facsimile: (216) 373-0536 Email: mramirez@dannlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kendall C. Kash, Esq. Sam A. Camardo, Esq. Terry M. Brennan, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER-CLEVELAND Ste. 2000 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-6689 Email: kkash@bakerlaw.com scamardo@bakerlaw.com tbrennan@bakerlaw.com ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Hickman Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Craig Hickman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATKORE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 2024 CH 09683 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12294. On October 23, 2024, Plaintiff commenced the State Court Action, asserting claims against Defendant for alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act ("GIPA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Chad W. Moeller, Esq. Alissa J. Griffin, Esq. NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLP 2 N. LaSalle St. Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 269-8000 Email: cmoeller@nge.com agriffin@nge.com BCBSM INC: Court Grants Settlement Class Counsel's Fee Request -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Settlement Class Counsel's Motion for Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in the case captioned as BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS and BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VYERA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, a PHOENIXUS AG, MARTIN SHKRELI, and KEVIN MULLEADY, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-1884-DLC (S.D.N.Y.). After considering the six factors set forth in Goldberger v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 50 (2d Cir. 2000), the Court finds that Settlement Class Counsel's current request for attorneys' fees equal to 10% of the money paid into the Class Settlement Fund between June 17, 2022 and October 27, 2023 is fair and reasonable and satisfies all criteria for compensating Settlement Class Counsel for the work they performed in this litigation. Settlement Class Counsel's fee request is unopposed, and a lodestar cross check confirms that the fee request is reasonable. The Court awards Settlement Class Counsel $122,643.61 in attorneys' fees from the Class Settlement Fund, equal to 10% of the $1,226,436.08 paid into the Class Settlement Fund between June 17, 2022 and October 27, 2023. As previously ordered by the Court, to the extent additional contingent settlement payments are paid into the Class Settlement Fund in the future, Settlement Class Counsel may request additional attorneys' fees of up to 10% of any additional funds received. The Court reserves exclusive jurisdiction over any additional requests for attorneys' fees in this litigation. Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses The Court also grants Settlement Class Counsel's request to be reimbursed for $36,740.56 in litigation expenses from the Class Settlement Fund. These expenses are reasonable in size and scope and are the type of expenses that courts routinely reimburse in class action litigation. As agreed to in the Settlement Agreement and as previously ordered by the Court, Settlement Class Counsel may continue to pay from the Class Settlement Fund the actual costs of notice, settlement administration, and taxes without further order of the Court. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sVVGTw BELONG HOME: Gupta Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Akash Gupta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELONG HOME, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV089919 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 17, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-07239-JSC. The State Court Action asserts the following causes of action: False Advertising; Unfair Competition and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Marissa Nebenzahl Sinha, Esq. Mark V. Boennighausen, Esq. Megan Lee, Esq. LATHROP GPM LLP 70 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408.286.9800 Facsimile: 408.998.4790 Email: marissa.sinha@lathropgpm.com mark.boennighaussen@lathropgpm.com Megan.Lee@lathropgpm.com BIG Y FOODS: Belozerov Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Y Foods, Inc. The case is styled as Serge Belozerov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Electric Company, Case No. 2479CV00622 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Oct. 17, 2024). The case type is stated as "Torts." Big Y -- https://www.bigy.com/ -- is one of the largest independently owned supermarket chains in New England.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq. REARDON SCANLON LLP 45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (860) 955-9455 BIO-LAB INC: Hounds Town Sues Over Contaminated Air --------------------------------------------------- Hounds Town – Atlanta - Conyers and Amanda Mcdowell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIO-LAB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and KIK CUSTOM PRODUCTS INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-04636-SEG (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought seeking redress for residents living or working and businesses operating in proximity to Defendants' chemical production facility in Rockdale County, Georgia (the "Facility") and the impact of the Plume and contaminated the air after the Facility chemical fire. In the early morning of September 29, 2024, a fire broke out in the Facility after water from a "malfunctioning sprinkler head 'came in contact with a "water reactive chemical.'" The fire and a resulting days-long chemical reaction caused a plume of smoke laden with toxic chemicals to rise from the Facility (the "Plume"). The Plume contaminated the air in Rockdale County, across the Atlanta metro area and surrounding counties, and exposed Plaintiffs to massive amounts of toxic chemicals, including chlorine gas, bromine vapor, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen cyanide, hydrogen bromide, phosgene gas, and other volatile and semi-volatile compound byproducts. The fire and resulting Plume necessitated a mandatory evacuation of surrounding residents, and emergency orders to shelter in place, remain indoors, and caused the shut-down of local businesses. As a result of the Facility fire and the impact of the Plume and Defendants' actions afterwards, the Classes have all suffered, among other things, loss of use and enjoyment of property, property damage, exposure to toxic material, inconvenience, disruption, loss of business revenues, and economic damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and her one-year-old child have suffered damages in connection with the September 29, 2024, chemical fire and resulting Plume. Bio-Lab packages and sells pool and spa chemicals under brands including BioGuard, SpaGuard, Spa Essentials, Natural Chemistry, SeaKlear, and AquaPill.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle G.A. Wallace, Esq. SHIVER HAMILTON CAMPBELL, LLC 3490 Piedmont Road, Suite 640 Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 593-0020 - and - R. Brian Strickland, Esq. SMITH, WELCH, WEBB & WHITE, LLC 2200 Keys Ferry Court P. O. Box 10 McDonough, GA 30253 Phone: (770) 957-3937 Email: bstrickland@smithwelchlaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Bryan Faubus, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St NE Washington D.C. 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com bfaubus@classlawdc.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. Todd B. Naylor, Esq. Robert B. Sherwood, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A. 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: 513.345.8297 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com tnaylor@gs-legal.com rsherwood@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. Daniel Levin, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com BIOLAB INC: Davidson Sues Over Toxic Fumes Due to Fire ------------------------------------------------------ Nadia Davidson, Switzerlanzer Hamilton, Maurice Miller, Marie Quartney, Cortlandt Williams, Grady Williams, Grantleigh Williams, and Shemariah Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BIOLAB INC., and KIK CUSTOM PRODUCTS INC. d/b/a KIK CONSUMER PRODUCTS, (Ga. Super. Ct., Rockdale Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant due to the fire which released toxic chemicals, fumes, and carcinogens and caused various health issues to the Plaintiff. Biolab's Conyers Plant has been a public nuisance for years. There have been at least 3 separate fires or explosions that have inflicted significant harm on the local community. The latest fire broke out on September 29, 2024 (the "Bio Lab Fire"). The fire was initially extinguished, but later reignited triggering the building's sprinkler system. The water from the sprinkler system sprayed water onto chemicals in the facility, triggering an explosive chemical reaction. This latest BioLab Fire released massive amounts of poisonous smoke into the air. This poisonous smoke contained toxic chemicals such as chlorine, chloramine, bromine, and other chlorine compounds. News reports called the smoke "very, very toxic." Rockdale County officials issued an evacuation order, requiring 17,000 residents of Conyers, Georgia to evacuate and an additional 90,000 more told to shelter in place. All residents of Rockdale County were ordered to shelter in place. Neighboring counties were similarly affected with reports of noxious fumes throughout Metro Atlanta, including in the counties of Fulton, DeKalb and Gwinnett. Schools were closed throughout Metro Atlanta, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs suffered various health issues including respiratory, skin, eye, and cardiovascular issues as a result of the fire. Bio-Lab, Inc. is a Delaware company engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or supplying swimming pool and spa water care chemicals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Herman, Esq. 3424 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1650 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404-504-6500 Facsimile: 404-504-6501 Email: jherman@hermanjones.com - and - Peter A. Law, Esq. Denise Hoying, Esq. LAW & MORAN 563 Spring St NW Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 404-814-3700 Email: pete@lawmoran.com denise@lawmoran.com BLACK BOX SECURITY: Calvera Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Calvera, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees v. BLACK BOX SECURITY, INC., a California Corporation; EDAN YEMINI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV26611 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and Unfair Business Practices as a result of the Defendants failure to pay wages. The Defendants failed to pay wages, waiting time penalties; failed to pay wages; failed to pay overtime compensation; failed to furnish accurate wage and hour statements; failed to provide meal and rest periods. During his employment the Defendants, Plaintiff Was only provided one meal period per day and his meal periods were: not off duty; less than 30 minutes; and not timely. The Plaintiff was never provided a second meal period despite working 12-hour shifts. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime for all of his hours worked. The Plaintiff was also not provided accurate wage statements and was not paid all of his wages due upon his termination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a private security guard for Black Box from January 2022 to April 2024. BLACK BOX SECURITY, INC. was and is a California Corporation doing business located in Calabasas, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zack Broslavsky, Esq. BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP 1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Phone: (310) 575-2550 Facsimile: (310) 464-3550 Email: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com - and - Boris Dalis, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORIS DALIS 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 402-2224 Facsimile: (310) 307-3750 Email: bdalis@dalislaw.com BLACKBAUD INC: Court Remands 39 of 40 Atlas Suits to Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Harvey Bartle, III, of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey remands to the Superior Court 39 of the 40 lawsuits in ATLAS DATA PRIVACY CORPORATION, et al. v. BLACKBAUD, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03993-HB (D.N.J.), et al. The Plaintiffs in these 40 actions allege violations of a New Jersey statute known as Daniel's Law. The actions were originally filed in the Superior Court in a number of different counties in New Jersey. The Defendants, thereafter, removed them to the United States District for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446 on the ground that subject matter jurisdiction exists either under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) as a result of complete diversity of citizenship or under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). The Defendants assert that the Plaintiffs have collusively attempted to defeat federal jurisdiction. In two of the cases, the Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs' joinder of non-diverse defendants was fraudulent. Before the Court is the consolidated motion of the Plaintiffs to remand to the state court under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c) on the ground that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. All judges in the District of New Jersey have recused. The Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reassigned these and all related actions to Judge Bartle pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 292(b). Daniel's Law provides that New Jersey judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and their immediate families ("covered persons") may request that persons and businesses ("entities") not disclose or make available their home addresses or unlisted telephone numbers. The Plaintiffs in all of the actions are Atlas Data Privacy Corporation ("Atlas"), Jane Doe-1, Jane Doe-2, Edwin Maldonado, Scott Maloney, Justyna Maloney, Patrick Colligan, Peter Andreyev, and William Sullivan. Atlas, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, has filed lawsuit as the assignee of the Daniel's Law claims of over 19,000 New Jersey covered persons. The named individual Plaintiffs, all current or former law enforcement officers, are also citizens of New Jersey. They have brought their own claims for violations of Daniel's Law. In each of these forty cases, there is a named defendant which, like Atlas, is a citizen of Delaware. Upon the filing of the motions to remand, the Court authorized limited discovery on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Atlas provides a range of services for persons covered under Daniel's Law, who sign up for Atlas's platform ("users"). Before a Daniel's Law claim ever arises, Atlas monitors the internet for data brokers, who are potentially disclosing the users' home addresses and unlisted telephone numbers. Atlas, then, identifies those data brokers for its users. Additionally, Atlas provides each user with an individual e-mail address, from which the user may request that the data brokers remove his or her personal information. To do so, users may send either the form e-mail that Atlas provides or their own personalized e-mail. Atlas, then, schedules the delivery dates of the takedown notices. After takedown notices are sent, Atlas continues to monitor the recipients to see if they have complied with the requests. Upon signing up for Atlas's platform, users agree to Atlas's terms of service ("the terms"). In so doing, users agree that "upon written notice from Atlas," the users assign their right to bring civil enforcement actions for violations of their rights under Daniel's Law. Atlas may choose to send an assignment confirmation and litigate the Daniel's Law claim itself, or it may choose not to send a confirmation, in which case the users may litigate their own claims. In either case, the terms provide that Atlas will keep 35% of any recovery from the action with the user receiving the remaining 65%. Users also pay a subscription fee, whether or not a Daniel's Law claim arises. In early February 2024, following an alleged failure of the Defendants to comply with users' takedown requests, Atlas sent assignment confirmations to over 19,000 of its users. Shortly thereafter, it filed lawsuits on these assigned claims in the state court. The Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that remand is required because complete diversity of citizenship has not been satisfied under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). The statute requires that the citizenship of each plaintiff must be different from the citizenship of each defendant. The Defendants first maintain that diversity jurisdiction is lacking because Atlas as an assignee is not a real party in interest and, accordingly, its citizenship should be disregarded. The real parties in interest, the Defendants contend, are the users as assignors. Because Atlas is a citizen of Delaware, Judge Bartle opines that complete diversity of citizenship under Section 1332(a) is lacking in all these cases absent proof of collusion to destroy diversity or proof of fraudulent joinder. The Defendants also argue, among other things, that even if Atlas is a real party in interest, the assignments and the joinder of Atlas as a plaintiff were collusive. If so, diversity of citizenship exists under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). Judge Bartle notes that there are sound legal and business reasons unrelated to federal diversity jurisdiction for the assignments in question and for the joinder of Atlas as a plaintiff. The Court finds there was good faith and no collusion or improper motive or purpose. Accordingly, Judge Bartle holds that Defendants have not established the existence of diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) based on collusion of Atlas, its assignors, or anyone else. The Defendants in two of these 40 actions filed notices of removal from the Superior Court of New Jersey on the additional ground that the Plaintiffs fraudulently joined non-diverse Defendants whose presence would destroy complete diversity of citizenship between the Plaintiffs and the remaining Defendants. The first action is Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. Thomson Reuters Corp., Civil Action No. 24-4269 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 27, 2024). There the named Defendants are Thomson Reuters Corporation, Thomson Reuters Holdings Inc. ("Holdings"), Thomas Reuters Canada Limited, and Thomson Reuters Applications Inc. ("Applications"). Plaintiff Atlas, a corporation, is a citizen of both Delaware and New Jersey. Defendants Thomson Reuters Corporation and Thomson Reuters Canada Limited have citizenship, which is diverse from all named Plaintiffs. However, Holdings is a citizen of Delaware and New York, and Applications is a citizen of Delaware and Minnesota. Judge Bartle opines that the citizenship of these two Defendants destroys subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) unless they are improperly joined. The second action is Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. MyHeritage Ltd., Civil Action No. 24-4392 (D.N.J. filed Mar. 28, 2024). There the named Defendants are MyHeritage Ltd. and MyHeritage (USA), Inc. MyHeritage Ltd. is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Israel. MyHeritage (USA), like Plaintiff Atlas, is incorporated in Delaware. If MyHeritage (USA) is a proper defendant, complete diversity is absent, Judge Bartle says. MyHeritage (USA) has established that it was fraudulently joined and will be dismissed, Judge Bartle holds. There is complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) in Civil Action No. 24-4392. The Defendants urge that the jurisdictional requirements have been met for a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, ("CAFA"). Again, Judge Bartle points out, these 40 actions bear no similarity to class actions under CAFA. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the class action provisions of CAFA. Finally, the Defendants assert that subject matter jurisdiction exists, regardless of the citizenship of Atlas, under the "mass action" provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act. As with a CAFA class action, Judge Bartle says only minimal diversity is required. Jurisdiction exists if any plaintiff has different citizenship from any defendant. It is undisputed that minimal diversity is satisfied in all pending cases. Even if the 19,000 unnamed covered persons are real parties in interest, Judge Bartle points out that this fact does not satisfy the criteria for a mass action under CAFA. Nor is the difference between a parens patriae action in Hood and the claims here relevant. There is nothing in CAFA providing that the number of named plaintiffs may vary depending on the nature of the underlying claims. Since there are not a hundred named Plaintiffs in any of the complaints, Judge Bartle finds the Defendants' argument that subject matter jurisdiction exists because these lawsuits are mass actions under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11) is without merit. Judge Bartle holds that the Plaintiffs' motions to remand these actions will be granted except for Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. MyHeritage Ltd., Civil Action No. 24-4392, as to which the motion to remand will be denied. Defendant MyHeritage (USA) Ltd. in that action will be dismissed because it is fraudulently joined. The Court concludes that: (1) Atlas is a real party in interest; (2) the assignments to and joinder of Atlas are not collusive; (3) there is no fraudulent joinder except as noted; (4) complete diversity of citizenship is lacking under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) except for the one action noted; and (5) subject matter jurisdiction is absent under the class action and mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/fjth4zax from PacerMonitor.com. BLOCKCHAIN COINVESTORS: Sued Over Attempt to Appropriate Assets --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabi Gliksberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BLOCKCHAIN COINVESTORS ACQUSITION CORP. I, BLOCKCHAIN COINVESTORS ACQUISITION SPONSOR I LLC, MATTHEW LE MERLE, LOU KERNER, GARY COOKHORN, REBECCA MACIEIRA KAUFMANN, COLIN WEIL, and ALISON DAVIS, Case No. 2024-1202- (Del. Chancery Ct., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought arising from a SPAC sponsor's attempt to appropriate the residual assets of the SPAC--over $8 million in corporate assets--solely for itself to the detriment of public stockholders. The Defendants operate the SPAC and raised money from public shareholders in a November 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") of Class A shares (the "Public Shares"). Prior to the IPO, Defendants issued to themselves millions of Class B shares for less than a penny per share, which were designed to have value only if the SPAC successfully closed a business combination, and which were later converted into Class A shares without redemption rights (the "Founder Shares"). The Defendants twice attempted to complete a business combination, but both transactions failed to close. In November 2022, the SPAC announced a business combination with Qenta Inc. However, the SPAC terminated the agreement following the counterparty's failure to provide financials and the SPAC received, in turn, 50 shares of Qenta common stock (the "Qenta Shares") with a value of approximately $4 million. In April 2024, the SPAC announced a business combination with Linqto, Inc., but Linqto subsequently terminated that transaction and paid to the SPAC a termination fee of $5 million (the "Break-Up Fee") in exchange for the SPAC's agreement not to enforce the merger agreement. In October 2024, the SPAC announced that it would not be able to complete a business combination by its deadline and would liquidate. In connection with raising public money through the IPO, Defendants contractually waived any entitlement to the SPAC's assets in connection with a liquidation, and repeatedly represented that the Sponsor and Defendants would "lose their entire investment" and their Founder Shares would "be worthless" if they failed to complete a business combination. Nevertheless, after failing to complete a business combination, Defendants caused the SPAC to redeem all Public Shares without distributing the Break-Up Fee or Qenta Shares. Rather, those corporate assets were reserved for distribution exclusively to Defendants as holders of the Founder Shares. Each Defendant has a direct and substantial financial interest in the Break-Up Fee and the Qenta Shares, and the decision to distribute the SPAC's assets exclusively to themselves was a self-interested and disloyal decision that breached the Defendants' contractual obligations and fiduciary duties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a holder of Class A Public Shares of the SPAC. BCSA is a special purpose acquisition company, sometimes called a "blank check company," organized as a Cayman Islands corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Alleman, Jr., Esq. Sean A. Meluney, Esq. MELUNEY ALLEMAN & SPENCE, LLC 1143 Savannah Road, Suite 3-A Lewes, DE 19958 Phone: (302) 551-6740 Email: bill.alleman@maslawde.com sean.meluney@maslawde.com - and - Aaron T. Morris, Esq. Andrew W. Robertson, Esq. William H. Spruance, III, Esq. MORRIS KANDINOV LLP 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 431-7473 BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: Dougherty Files Suit in E.D. North Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. The case is styled as Alexis Dougherty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-00672-M (E.D.N.C., Nov. 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Bojangles -- https://www.bojangles.com/ -- is an American regional chain of fast food restaurants that specializes in Cajun-seasoned fried chicken and buttermilk biscuits and primarily serves the Southeastern United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (919) 600-5000 Fax: (919) 600-5035 Email: sharris@milberg.com BRAVANTE FARM: Faces Santiago Class Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------- An action has been filed against Bravante Farm Management, LLC. The case is captioned as MAYRA LOPEZ SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BRAVANTE FARM MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. MCV093262 (Cal. Super., Madera Cty., Oct. 14, 2024). Bravante Farm Management, LLC is a family-owned agricultural management business with over thirty years of experience. We specialize in managing farm operations for landowners. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lucas Clapp, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP 237 California St. El Segundo, CA 90245-4310 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 BRITISH COLUMBIA: Female Cops Sue Over Gender Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------ Catherine Urquhart, writing for Global News, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit against a number of B.C. municipalities is the topic of hearings this week in B.C. Supreme Court. The lawsuit was filed by six female police officers alleging they faced harassment and discrimination on the job because of their gender. Outside the Vancouver Law Courts, lawyer Kyle Bienvenu prepared his clients, all current and former officers, telling them, "Let's get in there and see what the judge wants to do and get ourselves to certification." Central Saanich Officer Ann Piper told Global News, "we're getting this in front of a judge right now which is what we want, which is what we're striving for and we're motivated for." Former Delta Police officer Helen Irvine added, "I think every time we come to court, we feel more and more motivated to be here and keep showing up and pushing forward." Some of the women have previously shared their stories. One of them, who can't be identified due to a court-ordered publication ban, was sexually assaulted by a fellow officer, who was later convicted and jailed. "What ends up happening with someone like me is you either quit your job or you kill yourself," she told Global News in October 2023. At least a dozen lawyers are representing the defendants. The defendants include municipalities, police boards, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner and B.C.'s solicitor general and public safety minister. The court will hear an application from the OPCC, which is attempting to be excluded from the case. Former Vancouver police officer Tammy Hammell described the proceedings, saying there was "definitely some intense emotion," "There's a lot of people with a lot of story in that room and if that story is suppressed, then the public is not going to know what is happening in the rank and file and that needs to change." The proposed class action case is booked for the entire week, with additional dates set in May. [GN] C&S LOGISTICS: Court Remands Tercero Case to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dena Coggins of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as TENIAH TERCERO, Plaintiff, v. C&S LOGISTICS OF SACRAMENTO/TRACY LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 2:24-cv-00963-DC-JDP (E.D. Calif.). This action is remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court for all further proceedings. On February 26, 2024, Plaintiff Teniah Tercero filed a class action complaint against Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC and specially appearing Defendant C&S Logistics of Sacramento/Tracy, LLC in Sacramento County Superior Court. Plaintiff's complaint alleges nine causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum and straight time wages in violation of California Labor Code Secs. 204, 1194, 1194.2, 1197; (2) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Secs. 1194, 1198; (3) failure to provide meal periods in violation of Secs. 226.7, 512; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest periods in violation of Sec. 226.7; (5) failure to timely pay final wages at termination in violation of Secs. 201-203; (6) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in violation of Sec. 226; (7) failure to indemnify employees for expenditures in violation of Sec. 2802; (8) failure to produce requested employment records in violations of Secs. 226 and 1198.5; and (9) unfair business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Secs. 17200, et seq. Plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class defined as: All persons who worked for any Defendant in California as an hourly-paid or non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning four years and 178 days before the filing of the initial complaint in this action and ending when notice to the Class is sent. Plaintiff alleges she worked for Defendants as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee from approximately July 2021 to approximately August 2022 in Sacramento County, California. On March 28, 2024, Defendants removed this action to this federal district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446, alleging diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)), traditional diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a)), and federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331) arising from the complete preemption of Plaintiff's state law wage and hours claims by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). Defendants' notice of removal alleges Plaintiff was represented by General Teamsters Local #150 at all times during her employment, and therefore her employment was governed by collective bargaining agreements between Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC and the Union. On June 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed the pending motion to remand this action back to Sacramento County Superior Court. On June 27, 2024, Defendant C&S Wholesale filed an opposition to the pending motion. Plaintiff seeks remand of this action to the Sacramento County Superior Court on the grounds that Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing (1) the amount in controversy for putative class members exceeds the $5,000,000 threshold for CAFA jurisdiction, (2) the amount in controversy for her individual claims exceeds the $75,000 threshold for traditional diversity jurisdiction, or (3) federal question jurisdiction exists based on preemption under Section 301 of the LMRA. The District Court finds Defendants have failed to meet their burden of proving the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 for traditional diversity jurisdiction because their future attorneys' fees estimate is speculative. The District Court also finds Defendants' attorneys' fees assumptions are also flawed because they fail to account for the impact of class claims. As Plaintiff notes, Defendants have not attempted to estimate her pro-rata share of attorneys' fees. The District Court concludes Defendants have not met their burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied. Even if the court were to adopt the rest of Defendants' calculations in full, the total would still fall below the $75,000 threshold. Therefore, the inadequacy of Defendants' attorneys' fees estimate is fatal to removal on traditional diversity jurisdiction grounds. Defendants assert that the District Court has federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff's overtime and meal and rest break claims are preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' claims are predicated on the theory that Defendant failed to pay for overtime hours and meal and rest breaks, and California law requires the payment of overtime wages and premium pay for non-compliant meal and rest breaks at the "regular rate of pay." The CBAs state that the overtime rate shall be "one and one-half times the straight time rate," but do not define the "straight time rate" or "regular rate of pay" for purposes of calculating overtime wages and break premiums. Therefore, Defendants argue that the court will have to analyze forms of pay provided by the CBAs and decide if they should have been included in employees' "regular rate." The District Court finds Defendants fail to identify any active dispute between the parties regarding the regular rate of pay used to calculate premiums. Because Defendants have not established that interpretation of the CBAs is required to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims, the court finds that LMRA preemption does not apply. Having found that none of Defendants' asserted bases for subject matter jurisdiction exist, the court will grant Plaintiff's motion to remand Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC's motion to compel arbitration is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. Defendant C&S Logistics of Sacramento/Tracy LLC's motion to dismiss is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, LLC's motion to dismiss is denied as having been rendered moot by this order. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M2WWsn CASCADE LIVING: Collin Suit Removed from State Court to E.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY COLLIN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CASCADE LIVING GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; CASCADE LIVING GROUP-GRASS VALLEY, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. CU0001671 (Filed Oct. 18, 2024) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Nevada, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on November 20, 2024. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01464 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff's complaint asserts the following eleven causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages; (2) Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; (3) Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums; (4) Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums; (5) Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records; (6) Failure to Pay Wages Timely during Employment; (7) Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation, (8) Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; (9) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; (10) Failure to Pay Sick Pay Accurately; and, (11) Unfair Competition Law. Cascade owns and operates, senior housing communities that offer senior living options.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Diane Marie O'malley, Esq. Samantha A. Botros, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com sbotros@hansonbridgett.com CAVENDISH FARMS: Filonek's Inc. Sues Over Illegal Scheme -------------------------------------------------------- Filonek's, Inc., d/b/a Filonek's Bar and Grill, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v. CAVENDISH FARMS LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LTD; and MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12240 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought to put an end to Defendants' illegal scheme, to recover damages, and to restore competition in the Frozen Potato marketplace. Starting as early as January 1, 2021 and continuing to the present ("Class Period"), Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of Frozen Potatoes in the United States. Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy by increasing the price of Frozen Potatoes at nearly identical times, leveraging a temporary spike in input costs to justify permanent industry-wide price increases, and utilizing other available means to exploit their collective market power and artificially increase prices of Frozen Potatoes. The Defendants' anticompetitive conspiracy has led to record profits and revenues during the Class Period. Defendant Lamb Weston reported that its first quarter fiscal year 2024 net income increased 111% year-over-year. From July 2023 to June 2024, although sales volume remained flat, Frozen Potato sales in dollars increased by 14.6%. Likewise, between July 2022 and July 2024, Frozen Potato prices jumped 47%. The Defendants have been able to increase the price of their Frozen Potatoes even after their input costs significantly declined. Starting in 2021, while facing increased input costs, Defendants collectively imposed price hikes with no worry their customers could defect to competitors. Frozen Potato Product prices climbed 47% from July 2022 to July 2024. In contrast, Defendants' input costs peaked in 2022 and fell steadily after that. Even today, Defendants' prices continue to climb and remain uncompetitively high. The Defendants' wrongful and anticompetitive actions had the intended purpose and effect of artificially fixing, raising, maintaining, and stabilizing the price of Frozen Potatoes to Plaintiff and members of the Classes (as defined herein) to overpay. As a direct result of Defendants' concerted pricing and supply side decision making, Frozen Potato prices in the United States have been artificially inflated since at least January 1, 2021, causing consumers such as Plaintiff and members of the Classes to pay more for Frozen Potatoes than they would have but for the Defendants' agreement, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potatoes for commercial use in its operation during the Class Period. The Defendants are the largest producers and sellers of frozen French fries, hash browns, tater tots and other frozen potato products (collectively, "Frozen Potato" or "Frozen Potatoes") in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Julie A. Murphy, Esq. HART McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 955-0545 Fax: (312) 971-9243 Email: shart@hmelegal.com jmurphy@hmelegal.com - and - Andrew M. Stroth, Esq. ACTION INJURY LAW GROUP, LLC One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Phone: (844) 878-4529 Fax: (312) 641-6866 Email: astroth@actioninjurylawgroup.com CAVENDISH FARMS: Gladys' Sues Over Unlawful Fixing of Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Gladys' Restaurant d/b/a Gladys', El Jarocho Mexican Restaurant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAVENDISH FARMS LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; 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.; NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD d/b/a/ POTATOES USA and CIRCANA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12089 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought against NPPB, a major potato industry trade association, and the four largest frozen potato processors--Lamb Weston, McCain, JRS, and Cavendish--("Defendants") for entering an unlawful conspiracy to raise, stabilize, fix or otherwise manipulate the prices of frozen potato products in the United States (the "Relevant Market"). A conspiracy which resulted in Plaintiffs and other similarly situated commercial indirect purchasers and class members paying supracompetitive prices for FPPs. By at least the start of 2021, Defendants conspired to fix the prices of their Frozen Potato Products above competitive levels. Defendants affected this price-fixing conspiracy through implementation of lockstep price increases that allowed them to realize unprecedented margins. This conspiracy continues to the present. One vehicle through which Defendants implemented their conspiracy is through potato price data aggregation services by Defendant Circana LLC and their market data aggregator "Potato Trac," and collectively through trade associations such as NPPB. These avenues granted Defendants access to each other's data and a direct line of communication with each other, enabling NPPB and its members to maintain supracompetitive prices, drive out discounters, and inflict other harms. The Defendants were able to implement these price increases and collectively raise prices in part 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 trade associations events and other information exchange mechanisms. FPPs are also a commodity product that lacks substitutes, which further makes collusion more likely. The four dominant processors of FPPS control 97% or more of the $68-billion-per-year Frozen Potato Products market. The Defendants' agreements individually and collectively unreasonably restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, state antitrust laws; state consumer protection laws; and common law. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, and all similarly situated commercial and institutional indirect purchasers and class members who bought FPPs from January 1, 2021, through the present day, bring this action against Defendants for these violations. Plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased FPPs indirectly from one of the Defendants for use in their commercial kitchen. National Potato Promotion Board d/b/a Potatoes USA is a business entity with its principal place of business located in Denver, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES PC 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Phone: (312) 899-9090 Email: rac@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: (314) 226-1015 Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. DaJonna Richardson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW, Suite 740 Washington, D.C. 20037 Phone: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: evelyn@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com drichardson@cuneolaw.com - and - Sterling Aldridge, Esq. John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. 404 Court Square N Lexington, MS 39095 Phone: (662) 834-2488 Fax: (662) 834-2628 Email: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. Marco Cercone, Esq. RUPP PFALZGRAF, LLC 1600 Liberty Building 424 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14202 Email: bailey@rupppfalzgraf.com cercone@rupppfalzgraf.com CEFCO STORES: Etienne Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messaging ---------------------------------------------------------- Rodney Etienne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CEFCO STORES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01077-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendants' unsolicited text messaging. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff listed his telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on June 5, 2021, and has not removed it from the Registry since that time. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. Rachel E. Kaufman KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com rachel@kaufmanpa.com CHIQUITA CANYON: Court Narrows Claims in Howse, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as STEVEN HOWSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHIQUITA CANYON, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.: 2:23-cv-08380-MEMF-MAR (C.D. Calif.), Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled on the following motions: (1) a Motion to Consolidate Cases filed by Defendants Chiquita Canyon Inc.; Chiquita Canyon, LLC; and Waste Connections US, Inc.; (2) a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Chiquita Canyon Inc.; Chiquita Canyon, LLC; and Waste Connections US, Inc.; and (3) a Request for Judicial Notice filed by Defendants Chiquita Canyon Inc.; Chiquita Canyon, LLC; and Waste Connections US, Inc. Defendant Chiquita Canyon, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Texas. Defendant Chiquita Canyon, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Defendant Waste Connections US, Inc. is also a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. Defendants operate a landfill located in Castaic, California. Plaintiffs in this Action are approximately 946 residents living around the Landfill. Waste Connections is the sole owner of Chiquita Inc. Chiquita Inc. is the sole member of Chiquita LLC. Waste connections exercises significant control over Chiquita LLC and Chiquita Inc. These entities had a unity of ownership and share their principal office and executive management team. The three Defendants present themselves to the public as one entity. The Howse Plaintiffs suffered various harm from numerous issues at the Landfill. The Howse Plaintiffs suffered headaches, nosebleeds, respiratory issues, heart issues, and other health issues. The Howse Plaintiffs were forced at times to remain inside and forgo use of the yards to avoid noxious odors and health effects. The Howse Plaintiffs were forced to keep windows and doors closed to remain safe. The Howse Plaintiffs experienced distress on a regular basis regarding possible exposure, and worried that small stints outside (e.g., to mow a lawn) would have unknown health impacts. The Howse Plaintiffs were embarrassed and unable to invite guests to their homes. The value of the Howse Plaintiffs' homes has decreased. These harms continue on a daily basis. The Howse Plaintiffs filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 25, 2023. The Howse Plaintiffs' initial complaint brought four causes of action against the Landfill Defendants and the County: private nuisance, public nuisance, negligence, and trespass. The Howse Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Per the Howse Plaintiffs' initial complaint, the putative class was: "All persons who rented or were owner-occupants of any housing unit located in whole or in part within the Class Area at any time since 1972." Defendants removed to this Court on October 4, 2023. Defendants asserted this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action based on the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On December 4, 2023, after the action had been removed, the Howse filed a First Amended Complaint. The FAC included only three causes of action against the Landfill Defendants and the County (dropping the trespass claim): private nuisance, public nuisance, and negligence. The FAC also changed the class definition—per the FAC, the putative class was: "Residents in the Class Area who rented or were owner-occupants of any housing unit located in whole or in part within the Class Area during 2023 who have had Landfill gases interfere with their use and enjoyment of their home." The Howse Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand on January 9, 2024, which Defendants opposed. The Howse Plaintiffs withdrew their Motion to Remand on April 17, 2024. The Howse Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to stipulation. The SAC included three causes of action: (1) private nuisance, (2) negligence, and (3) negligence per se. See id. The SAC was brought as an individual action on behalf of the then 731 named plaintiffs and was not brought as a class action, and so it included no class definition. The Howse Plaintiffs filed their operative TAC on June 19, 2024. The TAC includes two causes of action, the second of which has two subparts: (1) private nuisance, (2)(A) negligence, and (2)(B) negligence per se. The TAC was brought by approximately 946 residents. Many other plaintiffs have filed actions that appear to have some degree of factual overlap with this action, and that are now pending before this Court. The Court will note each such action below: 1. Mariam Siryani et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-03531. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 27, 2024, and removed to this Court on April 29, 2024. 2. Robert Aleksanyan et al v. Chiquita Canyon LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-04188. Filed in this Court on May 20, 2024. 3. Claudia Rivera et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-06127. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 24, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 22, 2024. 4. Quaiden Fenstermaker et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05910. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 29, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 13, 2024. 5. Geon Hwang et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05715. Filed in this Court on July 8, 2024. 6. Briana Mejia et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05921. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 30, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 15, 2024. 7. John Suggs et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-02444. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on February 2, 2024, and removed to this Court on March 25, 2024. 8. Jolene Acosta et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05885. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 29, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 12, 2024. 9. Scott Benjamin Siegal et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-09152. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 16, 2024, and removed to this Court on October 23, 2024. 10. Isabell Dolores Palomino et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05883. Filed in this Court on July 12, 2024. 11. Adams T. Evans et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-05679. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on April 15, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 5, 2024. 12. Anabel Austin et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-06966. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 9, 2024, and removed to this Court on August 16, 2024. 13. Melineh Gasparians et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-07519. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 10, 2024, and removed to this Court on September 4, 2024. 14. Kaden Alim et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, 2:24-cv-08342. Filed in this Court on September 27, 2024. See Kaden Alim et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, 2:24-cv-08342, ECF No. 1 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2024). 15. Alejandra Suarez et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-06358. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 20, 2024, and removed to this Court on July 29, 2024. 16. In Re Serieddine Consolidated Actions, Case No. 2:24-cv-09296. 359 complaints were filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court and all served on September 30, 2024. 17. Alina Hakopyan et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-09421. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 6, 2024, and removed to this Court on October 31, 2024. 18. Nicholas Difatta et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case 2:24-cv-08582. Filed in this Court on October 4, 2024. 19. Serenity Araiza et al v. Chiquita Canyon, LLC et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-04600. Filed in this Court on June 3, 2024. Pursuant to the Court's procedures for managing related cases, all of the actions listed above were transferred to Judge Frimpong after being filed in or removed to this Court. On May 20, 2024, Defendants filed a Request for a Status Conference, seeking to discuss "(1) the setting of a uniform pleading and responsive pleading schedule for the Related Actions; and (2) potential further consolidation and/or coordination of the Related Actions." Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on July 3, 2024. Defendants also filed a Request for Judicial Notice in support of the Motion to Dismiss the same day Defendants filed the instant Motion to Consolidate on July 11, 2024. The Motion to Consolidate requests (1) that the Court consolidate the Howse Action (Case No. 23-cv-08380), the Suggs Action (Case No. 2:24-cv-02444), the Siryani Action (Case No. 2:24-cv-03531), and "any future related cases" ; (2) that the Court coordinate the pleading and discovery schedule in the consolidated case; (3) as part of (2), that the Court order the adoption of a master complaint; and (4) as part of (2), that the Court temporarily stay discovery. The Howse Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion to Consolidate on July 25, 2024. Defendants also filed Motions to Consolidate in parallel in the Siryani Action (Case No. 2:24-cv-03531) and Suggs Action (Case No. 2:24-cv-02444). The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Dismiss on November 14, 2024. The Court grants in part the Motion to Consolidate Cases, grants the Request for Judicial Notice, and grants in part the Motion to Dismiss. The Court finds it appropriate to consolidate all of the actions regarding the Landfill listed above for pretrial purposes. The actions meet the standard of Rule 42(a), and the Court finds that consolidation for pretrial purposes will be efficient to conserve the resources of the Court and all parties. The Court will grant the Motion to Dismiss in part. The Court finds that the Howse Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged alter ego liability, and so will dismiss the claims to the extent they rely on this theory and grant the Howse Plaintiffs leave to amend. The Court will not dismiss any claim based on the other arguments Defendants raise. The Request for Judicial Notice is granted. The Motion is denied as to the request for a master complaint. The Motion is granted in part as to the request for a stay of discovery. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fyFkw9 CINMAR LLC: Greben Sues Over Untrue or Misleading Statements ------------------------------------------------------------ Melanie Greben, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CINMAR, LLC and FRONTGATE MARKETING, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10140 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants' violation of the California's False Advertising Law which prohibits businesses from making statements they know or should know to be untrue or misleading. On their website, Defendants list purported regular prices and advertise purported discounts from those listed regular prices. These include time-limited discounts offering "up to X% off" and "X% off" sitewide. Defendants also advertise that their Products have a lower discount price as compared to a higher, regular price shown in grey and/or strikethrough font. But in fact, Defendants' discounts are routinely available. As a result, everything about Defendants' price and purported discount advertising is false. The regular prices Defendants advertise are not actually Defendants' regular prices, because Defendants' Products are routinely available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendants advertise are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts time-limited and limited to a certain period of time (for example, Presidents' Day). When the Plaintiff made her purchase, Defendants advertised that a sale was going on, and so Defendants represented that the Product the Plaintiff purchased was being offered at a steep discount from the purported regular price that Defendants advertised. And based on Defendants' representations, the Plaintiff believed that she was purchasing a Product whose regular price and market value were the purported regular price that Defendants advertised, and that she was receiving a substantial discount. These reasonable beliefs are what caused the Plaintiff to buy from Defendants when she did. The representations the Plaintiff relied on, however, were not true. The purported regular price was not the true regular price that Defendants sell the Product for, the purported discount was not a true discount, and the discount was ongoing—not time-limited. Had Defendants been truthful, the Plaintiff and other consumers like her would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for them, says the complaint. The Plaintiff bought a Product from Defendants from their website, www.frontgate.com. The Defendants sell and market furniture and home decor products online through the Frontgate brand and website, www.frontgate.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Martin E. Brenner, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Phone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com martin@dovel.com grace@dovel.com CITIBANK NA: Court Narrows Claims in Letidas Logistics Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David S. Leibowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part Citibank, N.A.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant, and ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, CASE NO. 0:24-cv-61469 (S.D. Fla.). A Ponzi scheme was orchestrated and carried out by Defendant Citibank's bank customer-Nominal Defendant, Royal Bengal Logistics, Inc. At the time of the Ponzi scheme, RBL was a transportation and logistics company registered as a common carrier with the U.S. Department of Transportation and located in Coral Springs, Florida. From at least August 2019, through June 21, 2023, RBL defrauded hundreds of people, purporting to offer high-yield investment opportunities that generate 12.5% to 325% of "guaranteed" returns. RBL's Ponzi scheme was two-fold. The first involved the "fictional sale of a semi-truck or trailer." The second "centered on a long-term or short-term investment with a guaranteed fictional return." Plaintiff invested in RBL's Equipment Scheme and wired $35,000.00 "start-up" funds to the RBL account. More than 1,500 persons invested in RBL's Equipment and Loan Schemes, providing approximately $112 million in total investment funds. Fast forward to the present day, the Ponzi scheme music has stopped, and RBL is out of business. RBL's assets are currently being liquidated by a court-appointed receiver in a securities fraud lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts state law claims against Citibank, alleging that Citibank knew or should have known about the alleged fraud. Plaintiff also alleges that Citibank provided substantial assistance in furtherance of the Ponzi scheme by permitting RBL to use its "banking platform to engage in the transactions that were the subject of the Ponzi Scheme[]," for months after Citibank flagged the account for fraud. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of investors who both invested in RBL's Schemes and whose investment funds were held by Citibank in the RBL bank account. Counts II, IV, and VI against Citibank are grounded in "aiding and abetting" liability and Count VII alleges unjust enrichment. For relief, Plaintiff seeks "damages against Citibank in the amount of all investments, together with interests and costs," and "other relief as the Court may deem just and proper." Citibank's argument for dismissal is two-fold. First, Citibank argues Plaintiff cannot establish aiding and abetting liability (Counts II, IV, and VI), because Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing that Citibank (1) knew RBL was engaged in a Ponzi scheme; or (2) provided substantial assistance to RBL in furtherance of the scheme. Second, Citibank challenges Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim (Count VII) for failure to show Plaintiff conferred a direct benefit on Citibank, and because Citibank provided adequate consideration for the banking fees RBL paid. Because Plaintiff has not alleged facts that show Citibank actually knew about the fraud, dismissal of the aiding and abetting claims is warranted. Counts II, IV, and VI are dismissed without prejudice. The Motion is denied as to Count VII. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1K489g CLOUDERA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MARIUSZ J. KLIN, Lead Plaintiff; THE MARIUSZ J. KLIN MD PA 401K PROFIT SHARING PLAN; ROBERT BOGUSLAWSKI; ARTHUR P. HOFFMAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CLOUDERA, INC.; THOMAS J. REILLY; JIM FRANKOLA; MICHAEL A. OLSON; PING LI; PRIYA JAIN; MARTIN COLE; KIMBERLY HAMMONDS; ROSEMARY SCHOOLER; STEVEN SORDELLO; MICHAEL A. STANKEY; ROBERT BEARDEN; PAUL CORMIER; PETER FENTON; KEVIN KLAUSMEYER, Defendants-Appellees, No. 22-16807 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of the putative securities-fraud class action against Cloudera for failure to state a claim. Cloudera, Inc. is a data management and analytics software company. On April 28, 2017, Cloudera held an initial public offering. Just over two years later, on June 5, 2019, the company announced negative quarterly earnings, and the next day its stock price fell more than 40 percent. Klin, who had purchased Cloudera stock between the initial public offering and the price drop, brought this putative class action in the Northern District of California against Cloudera and several of its officers and directors. After Klin's case was consolidated with cases filed by other shareholders, the district court appointed Klin as the lead plaintiff, and he filed an amended class action complaint. On behalf of the putative class, Klin asserted claims under sections 11(a), 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77k(a), 77l(a)(2), 77o, as well as under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. He alleged that Cloudera and the individual defendants "made materially false and misleading public statements and omissions that exaggerated the Company's technological capabilities." The gravamen of the complaint was that Cloudera misled investors by claiming "that it possessed an 'original cloud native architecture' and 'cloud-native platform.'" Klin claimed that Cloudera's software "was not a cloud-native offering" and was instead "widely panned by Cloudera's existing and potential customers for lacking the key attributes of cloud products." The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that the complaint was deficient because it did "not explain what it meant to have 'cloud-native' products or 'cloud-native architecture' at the time Cloudera Defendants made the challenged statements," adding that "[w]ithout a contemporaneous definition or explanation for what 'cloud-native' technology meant when Cloudera Defendants made the challenged statements, the Court has no basis to find that Plaintiffs have adequately pled that Cloudera Defendants' statements were false." Klin then filed a second amended complaint. That complaint challenged 42 Cloudera statements in total: 32 under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and 10 under the Securities Act. It alleged that "cloud-native" and "cloud architecture" had fixed meanings during the class period—namely, that they "meant to reasonable investors that such offerings or capabilities had specific material attributes such as the use of containers, ease-of-use, seamless scalability, security and elasticity, none of which the Company's Class Period product offerings provided." The district court again dismissed. Although Klin alleged that the risks noted by Cloudera had already materialized at the time of the disclosures, the court determined that Klin had not provided any facts showing that the statements were false when they were made. Klin appeals. The panel affirmed the district court's determination that Klin had not adequately pleaded the falsity of Cloudera's statements when made. The panel explained that, because fraud was involved, Klin's claims were subject to a heightened pleading standard requiring that he state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. However, because certain terms in Cloudera's allegedly misleading statements lacked a plain or ordinary meaning, Klin had to, but did not, plead facts supporting his definitions of those terms. Reviewing the futility of amendment de novo, the panel also affirmed the district court's conclusion that further amendment of the complaint would be futile, where the district court warned Klin that failure to cure the deficiencies of a previous amended complaint would result in dismissal with prejudice, and Klin had not identified, even on appeal, the specific facts he would plead in a future complaint to remedy the previous complaint's shortcomings. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LuSMlZ CMS-NY/PA LLC: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Smalt Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ STACY SMALT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CMS-NY/PA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01441-BKS-ML (N.D.N.Y., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for late payment of wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a stylist at its Painted Post, New York SmartStyle location from in or around January 2020 until in or around July 2020. CMS-NY/PA, LLC is an owner and operator of salons, headquartered in Binghamton, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW D. CARLSON 3959 N. Buffalo Road, Suite 29 Orchard Park, NY 14127 Telephone: (716) 242-1234 Email: mdcarlson@mdcarlsonlaw.com COMMUNITY CLINIC: Faces Johnson Class Suit in D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Community Clinic of Maui, Inc. The case is captioned as TANYA L. JOHNSON; and WILLIAM R. TORRES, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CLINIC OF MAUI, INC. doing business as: Malama I Ke Ola Health Center, Case No. 1:24-cv-00443-JMS-RT (D. Haw., Oct. 9, 2024). The case is assigned to Judge J. Michael Seabright and referred to Magistrate Judge Rom Trader. Community Clinic of Maui Inc provides healthcare services. The Company provides primary health care, dental, health promotion, and disease prevention services to residents. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Robyak, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP, LLLC 500 Ala Moana Blvd Ste 3-480 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8822 Facsimile: (650) 232-0999 Email: dar@kleinlg.com - and - James M. Yuda, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP, LLLC 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Waterfront Plaza Suite 3-480 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8822 Facsimile: (808) 427-9761 Email: jmy@kleinlg.com - and - Jason W. Jutz, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP, LLLC 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Waterfront Plaza Suite 3-480 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8822 Email: jwj@kleinlg.com - and - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: LVerderame@edelson-law.com - and - Mallorie Chiemi Aiwohi, Esq. Klein Law Group, LLLC 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Waterfront Plaza Suite 3-480 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 639-7010 Email: mca@kleinlg.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Facsimile: (267) 685-0676 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com - and - Robert G. Klein, Esq. KLEIN LAW GROUP LLLC 500 Ala Moana Blvd. Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 591-8822 Facsimile: (808) 427-9761 Email: rgk@kleinlg.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to N.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff Burgess, Hank Crossman Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing, Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph Richardson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William Wasdin, Cleatis Webb, and Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00744 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00156-GMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor for Family and Medical Leave Act. CSX -- https://www.csx.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry Matthew Darby, Esq. DARBY LAW GROUP, LLC 201 International Circle, Ste. 500 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Phone: (833) 601-7245 Fax: (667) 770-6660 Email: pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 927-2969 Fax: (419) 793-1804 Email: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Jonathan L. Stone, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC. 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Phone: (757) 393-4093 Email: jstone@moodyrrlaw.com - and - Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Nicholas D Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N Washington Ave, Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 293-5249 Email: mthomson@caseyjones.law nthompson@caseyjones.law The Defendant is represented by: Donald J. Munro, Esq. Michelle Barineau, Esq. Nikki L McArthur, Esq. Thomas R Chiavetta, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, Nw Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 879-3922 Email: dmunro@jonesday.com mbarineau@jonesday.com nmcarthur@jonesday.com tchiavetta@jonesday.com - and - Joshua Ian Hammack, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, VA 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Email: jhammack@baileyglasser.com - and - Lindsay M. Cogley, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H McConnell Blvd. Ste. 600 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 469-3939 Fax: (614) 461-4198 Email: lcogley@jonesday.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff Burgess, Hank Crossman Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing, Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph Richardson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William Wasdin, Cleatis Webb, and Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00744 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 2, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01631-WSH to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor for Family and Medical Leave Act. CSX -- https://www.csx.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry Matthew Darby, Esq. DARBY LAW GROUP, LLC 201 International Circle, Ste. 500 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Phone: (833) 601-7245 Fax: (667) 770-6660 Email: pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 927-2969 Fax: (419) 793-1804 Email: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Jonathan L. Stone, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM, INC. 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Phone: (757) 393-4093 Email: jstone@moodyrrlaw.com - and - Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Nicholas D Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N Washington Ave, Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 293-5249 Email: mthomson@caseyjones.law nthompson@caseyjones.law The Defendant is represented by: Donald J. Munro, Esq. Michelle Barineau, Esq. Nikki L McArthur, Esq. Thomas R Chiavetta, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, Nw Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 879-3922 Email: dmunro@jonesday.com mbarineau@jonesday.com nmcarthur@jonesday.com tchiavetta@jonesday.com - and - Joshua Ian Hammack, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540 Washington, VA 20007 Phone: (202) 463-2101 Email: jhammack@baileyglasser.com - and - Lindsay M. Cogley, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H McConnell Blvd. Ste. 600 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 469-3939 Fax: (614) 461-4198 Email: lcogley@jonesday.com CSX TRANSPORTATION: Gales Suit Transferred to W.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Gales, Michael Allen, Ricky Anderson, John Barnett, Daniel Bell, Don Biemer, Jason Billingsley, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Keith Burger, Jeff Burgess, Jeremy Clifford, Hank Crossman Jr., Adam Dallas, Mitchell Davidson, Steven Delles, Kirk Diehl, Nathan Dove, Bradley Downey, Faron Elliott, Julie Enlow, Jason Ewing, Justin Foringer, Robert Garrett, Barry Gillum, Josh Hull, Mark Ingham, Richard Janosz, Jeremy D. Johnson, Jeremy M. Johnson, Justin King, Lewis Kirchner, Scott Lawton, Lester Lovelady, Dion McGee, Chris McShee, Robert Miller, Jason Monroe, Matthew Morgan, James Morton Jr., Toby Pack, Rennie Pankoski, Lamont Paulk, Denver Peterson, Michael Rafferty, Joseph Richardson, Mike Robbins, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Corey Secrest, Joseph Shultz, Jason Siewert, Kenneth Stover, Brian Stutz, Nathan Taylor, Kevina Thomas, Kevin Van Wagenen, John Varecka, Derick Walker, William Wasdin III, Cleatis Webb, Jeffrey Whisner, and Kyle Wood, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00744 was transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01160-JLS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor for Family and Medical Leave Act. CSX -- https://www.csx.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Perry Matthew Darby, Esq. DARBY LAW GROUP, LLC 201 International Circle, Ste. 500 Hunt Valley, MD 21030 Phone: (833) 601-7245 Fax: (667) 770-6660 Email: pmdarby@bsgfdlaw.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 333 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 927-2969 Fax: (419) 793-1804 Email: adam@apollo-law.com - and - Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Nicholas D Thompson, Esq. CASEY JONES LAW FIRM 323 N Washington Ave, Ste 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 293-5249 Email: mthomson@caseyjones.law nthompson@caseyjones.law The Defendant is represented by: Donald J. Munro, Esq. Thomas R Chiavetta, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, Nw Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 879-3922 Email: dmunro@jonesday.com tchiavetta@jonesday.com - and - Lindsay M. Cogley, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H McConnell Blvd. Ste. 600 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: (614) 469-3939 Fax: (614) 461-4198 Email: lcogley@jonesday.com CUSTOMERS BANCORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Customers Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: CUBI) between March 1, 2024 and August 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Customers Bancorp investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Customers Bancorp class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28067 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Customers Bancorp had inadequate anti-money laundering practices; (2) as a result, it was not in compliance with its legal obligations, which subjected it to heightened regulatory risk; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Customers Bancorp's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 31, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=28067 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] CYBER NOW: Unlawfully Withheld Instructors' Wages, Clifton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ KHRISTEN CLIFTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CYBER NOW LABS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02081 (E.D. Va., Nov. 20, 2024) alleges that CNL unlawfully withheld payment of full and timely wages earned by and owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated Cyber Security Team Lead training instructors employed by CNL in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Virgina Wage Payment Act. Class Members eligible to participate in the VWPA Class Actions in this case include Class Members performing Cyber Security Team Lead training instructor duties for the benefit of CNL and its clients during the relevant period: (a) who, for any pay period during the relevant period, CNL failed to fully or timely pay all promised and earned wages or (b) who, for any week during the relevant, CNL failed to pay fully or timely pay overtime premium wages for work exceeding 40 hours at the Virginia required time-and- one-half overtime premium rate. From August 26, 2024, until November 19, 2024, CNL employed Named Plaintiff to perform Cyber Security Team Lead training instructor employment duties for the benefit of CNL and its clients, the lawsuit says. CNL offers web-based classes to nationwide clients seeking cybersecurity training and certification.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com DELAWARE: Franchise Group Files Adversary Proceeding to D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------- An adversary complaint has been filed against Brian Gale, et al. The case is captioned as FRANCHISE GROUP, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIAN GALE, et al., Lead Case No. 24-50237 (D. Del., November 27, 2024). The adversary proceeding seeks (i) enforcement of the automatic stay; (ii) extension of the automatic stay under section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (iii) injunctive relief under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and/or Bankruptcy Rule 7065, to enjoin, for the duration of the Chapter 11 cases, the Defendants from asserting claims, commencing or continuing actions, and/or from otherwise attempting to exercise remedies against Andrew M. Laurence, president, chief executive officer, and director of certain of the Debtors, because such actions threaten to interfere with and impair the administration of the Debtors' reorganization efforts. Franchise Group, Inc. is a holding company headquartered in Delaware, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edmon L. Morton, Esq. Matthew B. Lunn, Esq. Allison S. Mielke, Esq. Shella Borovinskaya, Esq. RODNEY SQUARE 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 571-6600 Facsimile: (302) 571-1253 Email: emorton@ycst.com mlunn@ycst.com amielke@ycst.com sborovinskaya@ycst.com - and - James C. Dugan, Esq. Stuart R. Lombardi, Esq. WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 728-8000 Email: jdugan@willkie.com slombardi@willkie.com DENTSPLY SIRONA: North Collier Sues Over 28% Drop of Stock Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' RETIREMENT PLAN, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTSPLY SIRONA INC., SIMON D. CAMPION, GLENN COLEMAN, and ANDREAS G. FRANK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09083 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Dentsply's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Dentsply common stock at artificially inflated prices between December 1, 2022, and November 6, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Dentsply targeted low-income people who did not have access to good oral hygiene education, a dentist, or dental insurance, which often meant patients signing up for Byte had underlying dental issues that would have made them ineligible for treatment; (2) the push for Byte growth and sales commissions caused sales employees to sell to contraindicated patients; (3) as a result of the above, the Byte patient onboarding workflow did not provide adequate assurance that contraindicated patients did not enter treatment; (4) before and during the Class Period, reports of Byte patient injuries were pouring in; (5) Dentsply knew that its Byte aligners were causing severe patient injuries for years but did little to investigate those injuries or notify the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); (6) Dentsply had no systems in place to notify the FDA of these injuries, which the company is required to do within 30 days of learning of a problem; (7) the FDA had received a sharp uptick in reports of serious injuries from Byte patients; (8) as a result of the above, Dentsply materially overstated the goodwill value of Byte; (9) as a result of the above, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of Dentsply stock fell $6.72 per share, or more than 28 percent, from a closing price of $23.98 per share on November 6, 2024, to a closing price of $17.26 per share on November 7, 2024, on extraordinary trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated investors who had purchased Dentsply common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period have sustained economic losses, says the suit. North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighters' Retirement Plan is a provider of retirement, death, and disability benefits to firefighters and their beneficiaries based in Fort Myers, Florida. Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a manufacturer of professional dental products, with its principal executive offices in Charlotte, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER: Richards Files Suit in D.C. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority. The case is styled as Victoria Richards, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, Case No. 2024-CAB-007383 (D.C. Super. Ct., Nov. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Statutory Claim for the Consumer Protection Act. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water) -- https://www.dcwater.com/ -- provides drinking water, sewage collection, and sewage treatment for Washington, D.C.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. 412 H. St. Northeast, Ste. 302 Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-727-3400 Email: randolph.chen@dc.gov DOHMAN AKERLUND: Hauf Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------- Terry Hauf, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Dohman, Akerlund & Eddy, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-03182-JMG-RCC (D. Neb., Oct. 13, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' plan members. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. On February 28, 2024, Defendant experienced a network disruption (the "Data Breach"). The investigation determined that certain files may have been acquired without authorization on or about February 28, 2024. Through the investigation, Defendant determined the impacted information included the following: name and Social Security number (collectively, "PII" or "Personally Identifiable Information"). The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its clients' plan members' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Moreover, Defendant was targeted for a cyber-attack due to its status as a healthcare entity that collects and maintains highly valuable PII on its systems. The Defendant maintained, used, and shared the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the PII from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a plan member at Defendant's clients. The Defendant is a full-service accounting firm headquartered in Kearney, Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Removes Banuelos Suit to N.D. of Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of BENJAMIN BANUELOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DOMINO'S PIZZA LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (Case No. 24CV446082) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 9, 2024. The clerk of court for the Northern District of California assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-07085. The case is assigned to Judge Beth Labson Freeman. Domino's Pizza, Inc. operates a network of company-owned and franchise Domino's Pizza stores, located throughout the United States and in other countries. The Company also operates regional dough manufacturing and distribution centers in the contiguous United States and outside the United States. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Taylor Wemmer, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, California 92121-2133 Telephone: (858) 677-1400 Facsimile: (858) 677-1401 Email: taylor.wemmer@us.dlapiper.com DOWN RIGHT: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, DelaCruz Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. DOWN RIGHT MERCHANDISE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08820 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2024) alleges that Down Right failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://downrightmerch.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant operates the Down Right Merch online retail store, as well as the Down Right Merch interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal DRUM CONNECTION: Thorne Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. DRUM CONNECTION, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09033 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, www.soultonecymbals.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendant operates the Soultone Cymbals online retail store, as well as the Soultone Cymbals interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: 212.228.9795 Fax: 212.982.6284 Email: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal E.I. DU PONT: Plaintiffs Must Refile Bid to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Banks, et al., v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01672 (D. Del., Filed Sept. 6, 2019), Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order that the Plaintiffs shall refile on the docket their Motion to Certify Class at the time the briefing is complete. -- The briefing deadlines are unchanged. -- The Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class was filed on Aug. 26, 2024 -- The parties stipulated to amend the scheduling order and Plaintiffs' Motion will not be fully briefed until May 2, 2025. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Product Liability. DuPont is an American multinational chemical company first formed in 1802 by French-American chemist and industrialist Eleuthere Irenee du Pont de Nemours.[CC] EL RANCHERO: Faces Santiago Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- KAREN BACILIA RUIZ SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EL RANCHERO RESTAURANT, INC. and PEDRO VELASQUEZ and BALBINA ZACA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08243 (E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendanst as a server from in or around May 2023 until in or around November 2023, and from in or around July 2024 until in or around November 2024. El Ranchero Restaurant, Inc. is a restaurant company based in Flushing, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 EMIRATES: Seeks More Time to File Discovery ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al., v. Emirates, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786-LTS-SN (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request for a two-week extensions of the discovery and filing deadlines set forth in Order dated Nov. 19, 2024 (the "Scheduling Order"). To preserve the alignment of the remaining discovery and filing deadlines in the Scheduling Order, Defendants request corresponding two-week extensions of those deadlines as follows: (i) the deadline for Plaintiffs to complete depositions of Defendants' corporate representatives from Jan. 15, 2025, to Jan. 29, 2025; (ii) the deadline to complete fact discovery from March 10, 2025, to March 24, 2025; and (iii) the deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification from March 17, 2025, to March 31, 2025. This is Defendants' first request, and the Plaintiffs consent to this request. The Defendants have been working diligently to complete their review of potentially responsive ESI collected from Emirates' servers in Dubai. To date, the Defendants have reviewed approximately 15,000 potentially responsive documents, and anticipate producing approximately 800 documents (totaling approximately 3,200 pages) by Friday, November 29, 2024. Despite that progress, the volume of potentially responsive documents collected from Dubai significantly exceeded initial estimates, and Defendants are still reviewing the remaining documents. Given the scope of that work and Defendants’ projected timeline for completion, Defendants respectfully request a two-week extension of their ESI production deadline from November 29, 2024, until December 13, 2024. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B0KmQu at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Evan B. Citron, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 666 Third Avenue New York NY 10017-4030 Telephone: (212) 545-4069 Facsimile: (212) 972-3213 E-mail: evan.citron@jacksonlewis.com ETZ HAYIM: Class Settlement in Cimino Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division, grants final approval of the class action settlement in the lawsuit captioned DEBORAH CIMINO and CONOR MANCONE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ETZ HAYIM HOLDINGS, S.P.C., d/b/a LAZARUS NATURALS, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01185-JR (D. Or.). The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The Court has reviewed the Motion, and the Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement") entered into between Plaintiffs Deborah Cimino and Conor Mancone, and Defendant ETZ Hayim Holdings, S.P.C., d/b/a Lazarus Naturals. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also finds the Settlement Agreement was entered into in good faith, at arm's length, and without collusion. The Court approves and directs consummation of the Settlement Agreement. 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 has and reserves jurisdiction over the Settlement and this Settlement Agreement, and for purposes of the Settlement and Settlement Agreement, the Court has and reserves jurisdiction over the Parties to the Settlement. 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 June 18, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement that preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement and established a hearing date to consider the final approval of the Settlement Agreement and Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses. On Sept. 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's Preliminary Approval Order approved the Settlement Notices and Claim Form, and the Court found the mailing, distribution, and publishing of the various notices as proposed met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process, and was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, constituting due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled to notice. The Court finds that the distribution of the Notices has been achieved pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and the Settlement Agreement, and that the Notice to Settlement Class Members complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and due process. The Court finds ETZ has complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1715 regarding the CAFA Notice. The Court grants final approval to its appointment of Deborah Cimino and Conor Mancone as the Class Representatives of the Class. The Court finds for settlement purposes that the Class Representatives are similarly situated to absent Settlement Class Members, are typical of the Settlement Class, and are adequate Class Representatives, and that Class Counsel and the Class Representatives have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement 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. The Court finds that the Settlement Class defined above satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) for settlement purposes. Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the terms of the Settlement Agreement are finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interest of, the Settlement Class and each of the Settlement Class Members. Settlement Class Members, who did not opt-out of the Settlement, are bound by this Final Approval Order. The Court approves the distribution and allocation of the Settlement Fund under the Settlement Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Judge Russo explains that this Final Approval Order, and all statements, documents, or proceedings relating to the Settlement Agreement are not, and will not be construed as, used as, or deemed to be evidence of, an admission by or against ETZ of any claim, any fact alleged in the Action, any fault, any wrongdoing, any violation of law, or any liability of any kind on the part of ETZ or of the validity or certifiability for this Litigation or other litigation of any claims or class that have been, or could have been, asserted in the Action. The Settlement Agreement and Final Approval Order will not be construed or admissible as an admission by ETZ that the Plaintiffs' claims or any similar claims are suitable for class treatment. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/33zf83r3 from PacerMonitor.com. Paul B. Barton -- paul@olsenbarton.com -- OLSEN BARTON LLC, in Lake Oswego, OR 97035; Mason A. Barney -- mbarney@sirillp.com -- Tyler J. Bean -- tbean@sirillp.com -- SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP, in New York, New York 10151, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated. FARMERS UNION: Evans Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Union Hospital Association, et al. The case is styled as Christopher Evans, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association d/b/a Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-2024-00123 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Beckham Cty., Nov. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Negligence General." Farmers Union Hospital Association provides health care services to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity policy without charge or amounts less than established rates.[BN] FARMERS UNION: McAtee Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Union Hospital Association, et al. The case is styled as Jennifer McAtee, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association d/b/a Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-2024-00122 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Beckham Cty., Nov. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Negligence General." Farmers Union Hospital Association provides health care services to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity policy without charge or amounts less than established rates.[BN] FARMERS UNION: Vanspyker Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Farmers Union Hospital Association, et al. The case is styled as Jake Vanspyker, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association d/b/a Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-2024-00121 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Beckham Cty., Nov. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Negligence General." Farmers Union Hospital Association provides health care services to patients who meet certain criteria under its charity policy without charge or amounts less than established rates.[BN] FILMSUPPLY LLC: Trimboli Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Jonathan Trimboli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FilmSupply, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-06752 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-01156-P to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Filmsupply -- https://www.filmsupply.com/ -- is the global leader in cinematic footage licensing, representing filmmakers from M ss ng P eces, Biscuit, Anonymous Content, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian John Barnes, Esq. Ari Nathan Cherniak, Esq. Julian Ari Hammond, Esq. Polina Brandler, Esq. HAMMONDLAW P.C. 1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste. 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Phone: (510) 316-9926 Fax: (310) 295-23 Email: abarnes@hammondlawpc.com acherniak@hammondlawpc.com JHammond@hammondlawpc.com pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald Irvin Raether, Jr., Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com jscheid@pretzel-stouffer.com - and - Andrick Zeen, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 350 South Grand Avenue Two California Plaza, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 928-9866 Email: andrick.zeen@troutman.com FOUR SEASONS: Shalakhti Sues Over Unpaid OT & Breach of Contract ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARI SHALAKHTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOUR SEASONS HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING, INC., FOUR SEASONS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC, and FOUR SEASONS HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, PLUMBING, AND ELECTRIC, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12277 (N.D. Ill., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and for breach of contract. The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt Service Technician at the Defendants' Bedford Park office in Cook County, Illinois from approximately March 20, 2022, through February 5, 2024. Four Season Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. is a provider of heating and air conditioning services, doing business in Illinois. Four Seasons Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC is a provider of heating and air conditioning services, doing business in Illinois. Four Season Heating, Air Conditioning, Plumbing, and Electric, LLC is a provider of heating, air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 East Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com - and - Jonathan Melmed, Esq. Meghan Higday, Esq. MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C. 1801 Century Park E., Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 824-3828 Email: mh@melmedlaw.com jm@melmedlaw.com GATEWAYCDI INC: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Martinez, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. GATEWAYCDI, INC. and BRAND ADDITION, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-08252 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Courreges provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.Theintelstore.com (hereinafter "Theintelstore.com" or "the website"). The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because the Defendant's website, Theintelstore.com, is not equally accessible to blind consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Gatewaycdi's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. Intel Stores provide to the public important and enjoyable goods and services including the ability to browse and purchase a variety of Intel branded products including apparel, technology products, gifts and memorabilia, promotional and education material, and related products which are offered for sale at the Stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Phone: (917) 373-9128 Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com GENE BY GENE: Saathoff Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joshua Saathoff, and others similarly situated v. GENE BY GENE, LTD., d/b/a FAMILY TREE DNA, Case No. 2024 CH 09556 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12118. The Plaintiff further alleges that FamilyTreeDNA discloses to a third-party marketing company the identities of individuals on whom a genetic test was performed, but not the genetic testing results. FamilyTreeDNA denies the violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA) alleged in the Complaint.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq. Matan Shacham, Esq. Christina Lee, Esq. Spencer McManus, Esq. Robyn Pariser, Esq. Jonhatan A. Aragon, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Phone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 Email: bberkowitz@keker.com mshacham@keker.com clee@keker.com smcmanus@keker.com rpariser@keker.com jaragon@keker.com GENTING NEW YORK: Seeks to Depose Roberts & Shaw ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roberts et al., v. Genting New York LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00257-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to depose Roberts and Shaw. Had Plaintiffs' counsel limited the class representatives to four identified and specific individuals, Defendant would have deposed each of them. The Defendants should not be denied an opportunity to depose Roberts and Shaw now because Plaintiffs inexcusably waited a decade to modify the number of class representatives. On Nov. 6, 2024, ten years after filing their Amended Complaint seeking to certify 63 class representatives, the Plaintiffs unilaterally and without authorization reduced the number of putative class representatives to four. The Plaintiffs' untimely disclosure has indisputably prejudiced Defendant warranting the depositions of two of those class representatives who were not previously deposed. Genting New York owns and operates casino. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7sQVID at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jonathan M. Sabin, Esq. KANE KESSLER, P.C. 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 541-6222 Facsimile: (212) 245-3009 E-mail: jsabin@kanekessler.com GO NEW YORK: Court Refuses to Certify Order for Appeal in Teta Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Plaintiffs' motion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal in the lawsuit captioned CINDY TETA and MOTTY STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GO NEW YORK TOURS, INC., d/b/a TOPVIEW SIGHTSEEING AND EVENT CRUISES NYC–CITY LIGHTS CRUISE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01614-ER (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Cindy Teta and Motty Stein bring this class action on behalf of all similarly situated consumers against Go New York Tours, Inc., d/b/a Topview Sightseeing and Event Cruises NYC ("Go New York") for a violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07. Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal based on this Court's July 1, 2024 Order compelling arbitration between the parties. Go New York is a New York City tour company that is incorporated in New York and maintains its principal place of business in New York, New York. Go New York sells, among other things, cruise tickets from its website, https://eventcruisenyc.com/events/city-lights-cruise-nyc. Plaintiffs Teta and Stein were purchasers of tickets for Go New York's sightseeing cruise. During the purchasing process, the Plaintiffs allege that Go New York's website did not disclose the additional fees that were to be added to the initially displayed ticket price before checkout. At the final checkout step, customers must agree to the terms and conditions of Go New York's website via a clickwrap agreement before they are able to purchase tickets. The clickbox is next to a line of text that reads "I have read and agree to eventcruisenyc.com terms and conditions." "Terms and conditions" is in light blue text with a hyperlink to the terms. When customers click the hyperlink, the first paragraph of the terms and conditions includes a statement that Go New York's "terms and conditions contain a mandatory arbitration provision that requires the use of arbitration on an individual basis and limits the remedies available to you in the event of certain disputes." The terms also include a section titled "Liability and Warranties Disclaimer." Plaintiffs Teta and Stein filed suit individually and on behalf of all purchasers of tickets to City Lights Cruise on March 1, 2024, asserting that Go New York's website did not disclose the total cost of the ticket prior to the ticket being selected for purchase and increased the ticket price during the purchase process in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law Section 25.07. On May 10, 2024, Go New York moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the mandatory arbitration clause in their terms and conditions, and on July 1, 2024, the Court issued an order granting Go New York's motion to compel arbitration and instructed the parties to inform the Court no later than July 15, 2024, if they wished for the action to be stayed rather than dismissed. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a letter with the Court indicating their intent to seek an interlocutory appeal and pursuant to approval from both parties, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of arbitration on June 23, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to appeal the Court's July 1, 2024 order on Aug. 13, 2024. Specifically, the Plaintiffs argue that an interlocutory appeal is appropriate because: (1) the issue of whether an arbitration clause governing a contract and its services also covers pre-marketing conduct is a controlling question of law; (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion; and (3) an immediate appeal would materially advance the litigation. The Plaintiffs allege that the July 1, 2024 Order contains a controlling question of law pertaining to whether an arbitration clause governing a contract and its services also covers pre-agreement marketing conduct. Go New York contends that the Order concerns a mixed question of law and fact, which should proceed to final judgment, before the Plaintiff is granted an opportunity to appeal. The Court agrees that granting certification pursuant to Section 1292(b) would require consideration by the Second Circuit of a mixed question of law and fact. Here, the question that the Plaintiffs present in their petition is whether an arbitration clause governing a contractual agreement and its services covers pre-marketing conduct. Judge Ramos says the question presented does not pose an issue of pure law and "mixed questions of law and fact are not appropriate for certification under Section 1292(b)," citing Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity v. Bank of New York, No. 11 Civ. 05459, 2016 WL 2744831, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2016) (quoting Freeman v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc., No. 85 Civ. 3302 (LBS), 1993 WL 524858, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1993)). Even if the Court were to construe the Plaintiffs' question as one of pure law, Judge Ramos holds it is not controlling as to warrant interlocutory review. Here, a reversal of the Order would not immediately terminate the Plaintiffs' claim and availability for relief against Go New York. Judge Ramos points out that the instant appeal simply seeks to determine the appropriate forum for the proceeding, either in this Court or through arbitration. The Plaintiffs are not seeking a final judgment on the merits of the underlying claim. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs do not present a controlling question of law and fail to satisfy the first prong. The Court finds that there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion as to the enforcement of the arbitration clause. Accordingly, there is no substantial ground for difference of opinion that would allow for certification. The Court concludes that certification is not guaranteed to speed up the progression of this case and rather may be the cause of further delays. Accordingly, the Court says this case does not present a set of facts that merits certification of an interlocutory appeal. For these reasons, the Court denies Teta and Stein's motion for certification of interlocutory appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mryz6jue from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Maurice Blackburn Probes Anti-Competitive Conduct ------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Thomsen, writing for StartUp Daily, reports that law firm Maurice Blackburn is wading into an issue that's vexed the federal government, competition watchdog the ACCC, as well as the media, investigating a potential class action against Google for alleged anti-competitive conduct in Australia's digital advertising market. The idea is likely to be tempting to publishers Google has not struck deals with under the government's News Media Bargaining Code offering compensation for lost revenue in being forced to use Google's adtech services. In June the tech giant struck new agreements running 1-to-5 years with Nine, Seven West Media, News Corp and smaller publishers such as Times News Group, Private Media and The Conversation. It's worth an estimated $130 million, so while publishers who missed out on Google striking agreements have nothing to lose, those receiving cash will have to weigh up if there's more money on the table once the lawyers have taken their cut if successful. This week, the Victorian Supreme Court ratified a $271.8 million settlement from US ride-sharing giant Uber following a five-year class action by Maurice Blackburn on behalf of the Australian taxi industry. The law firm pocketed $38.7 million from the settlement, including its uplift fee (for winning), launched the case against Uber in 2019. Litigation funder, Harbour Fund scored around 30% of the settlement, $81.54 million, as its funding commission, leaving $152 million in the kitty for the taxi industry. Meanwhile, the government is trying to figure out how to deal with Meta after pulling out of the Code. The class action would seek compensation for publishers of digital ad inventory who received less revenue than otherwise for the space they sell, due to Google's role. Maurice Blackburn argues Google has a dominant position at all points of the adtech supply chain, providing adtech services to both the advertisers and publishers through programmatic advertising. The potential class action follows similar proceedings in the US, including a Department of Justice prosecution that went to trial in September this year, as well as legal actions by both advertisers and publishers, plus class actions in the UK Competition Tribunal and Canada. The ACCC's 2021 inquiry into digital advertising raised competition concerns, concluding that Google's conflicts of interest had "led to poor outcomes" for publishers. "Over more than a decade, Google's vertical integration and strength in ad tech services has allowed it to engage in a range of conduct which has lessened competition over time and entrenched its dominant position," the ACCC Digital advertising services inquiry final report said. Maurice Blackburn said that anyone who has a website and/or mobile phone app that displays digital advertising (ie. sells ad space) directed at Australian consumers at some point in the past six years may have suffered financial loss because of Google's conduct and, if the action proceeds, be eligible for compensation. The ad space needs to have been sold programmatically using AdTech services and you need to have used a Google product to sell your ad space. [GN] GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shelton Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Sheri Shelton, and all others similarly situated v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE TRUST; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 2024-01434532-CU-CO-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 27, 2024, and assigned Case No. 8:24-cv-02597. In her complaint, Shelton alleges claims against GAIC for false advertising, breach of contract, bad faith, negligence, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexander E. Potente, Esq. Joshua J. Bettencourt, Esq. CLYDE & CO US LLP 150 California Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 365-9800 Fax: (415) 365-9801 Email: alex.potente@clydeco.us joshua.bettencourt@clydeco.us GREEN ANT: Romero Sues Over Failure to Pay Hours Worked ------------------------------------------------------- Wendy Vanessa Romero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE GREEN ANT LLC AND TRINITY MA INC. D.B.A. HAPPY LEAF COLLECTIVE; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 24LBCV02218 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' Failure to Provide Compliant Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Compliant Rest Periods; Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked; Failure to Pay All Overtime Owed; Failure To Reimburse Work-Related Expenses; Wage Statement Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; Violation of Unfair Competition Law; Private Attorneys General Act; Violation of California Government Code – Sex Harassment; Violation of California Government Code – Discrimination based on Sex; Violation of California Government Code – Retaliation; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal breaks because Plaintiff was required to remain on call and on duty during meal breaks, and Plaintiff would frequently receive work call to her personal cell phone from vendors and suppliers during meal breaks. Despite not being provided with compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. The Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant rest breaks because Plaintiff was not allowed to leave the work premises during rest breaks. Despite not being provided with compliant rest breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked because Defendant required Plaintiff to perform work off the clock for an average of five hours per week. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime owed because Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a day and 40 hours in a workweek while also performing work off the clock, which therefore yielded an incorrect rate of pay for the hours actually paid. The Defendants failed to correctly calculate Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, and as a result, underpaid Plaintiff's overtime. Specifically, Defendants did not include all non-discretionary pay that Plaintiff earned when calculating Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. The Defendants failed to reimburse Plaintiff for all work-related expenses because Plaintiff was required to purchase fish tank supplies in order to perform their work duties, but Defendants did not reimburse Plaintiff for these expenses. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other things. Due to Defendants' failure to pay all wages due to Plaintiff during their employment, it follows that Defendant failed to pay all wages due at the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment as well. Therefore, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for waiting time penalties, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from September 1, 2022, until October 20, 2023. THE GREEN ANT LLC and TRINITY MA INC. d.b.a. HAPPY LEAF COLLECTIVE are California a limited liability company and a California corporation with principal places of business located in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com GULLY TRANSPORTATION: Bid to Certify Collective Action Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN SEALS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF INDIVIDUALLY AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED EMPLOYEES; v. GULLY TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-00824-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Roseann Ketchmark entered an order denying without prejudice the amended consent motion to certify a collective action and approve the parties' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") settlement agreement. Accordingly, while the Court finds a bona fide dispute exists, it does not find the settlement agreement to be fair and reasonable as proposed. The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and a putative collective consisting of Gully Transportation employees who worked as "yard hostlers," asserting they worked overtime hours without compensation. On March 4, 2024, the Parties mediated the case, and the matter resolved at mediation. Gully offers truckload, temperature controlled transportation, and trailer leasing services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KdtN5b at no extra charge.[CC] H. MART COMPANIES: Harrell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Harrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. H. Mart Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-10789 (D.N.J., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, https://hmart.com, (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar locations. Upon visiting Defendant's website, Hmart.com, Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the services at Hmart.com prior to entering Defendant's physical location, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person. The Defendant operates the Hmart.com online retail store and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New Jersey and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com HABIT RESTAURANTS: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Itzel Garcia, individually and on behalf of similarly situated former and current aggrieved employees v. THE HABIT RESTAURANTS, LLC, dba THE HABIT BURGER GRILL, and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. 24VECV05032 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendants violation of the California Labor Codes as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay proper wages. The Defendants failed to pay overtime, failed to pay minimum wages, meal period violations, rest break violations, failed to pay vested vacation benefits, sick and covid period/benefits violations, failed to maintain & produce employee records as well as unreimbursed business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting time violations, untimely payment of wages, failed to timely pay wages at separation wage statements violations misclassification failed to pay regular rate of pay failed to pay owed tips unfair business practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a cook for the Defendants. The Defendants operate as a restaurant and food and beverage business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com HAMPDEN COUNTY, MA: Kirchner Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hampden County Sheriff's Department. The case is styled as Nicholas Kirchner, Morgan Wanzer, Jen Assad, Nicholas Moutinho, Kristopher Grimshaw, Dan Willemain, Chase LaPorte, Chris Lempke, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hampden County Sheriff's Department, Case No. 2479CV00722 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Nov. 27, 2024). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Hampden County Sheriff's Department -- https://hcsoma.org/ -- offers education and opportunity to people in custody while helping the Western Mass community.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Morneau, Esq. CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP 273 State St., Second Floor Springfield, MA 01103 Phone: (413) 455-1730 HAPPY TIMES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Picon Says ------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HAPPY TIMES CAFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09054 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.eckhauslatta.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. 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 HCL TECHNOLOGIES: Kent's EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as STEPHEN KENT, Plaintiff, v. HCL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C24-1332 MJP (W.D. Wash.). Kent filed this proposed class action in King County Superior Court against Defendants HCL Technologies Limited, HCL America, Inc., HCL America Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-20, claiming they violated the pay transparency requirements of Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58.110. HCL timely removed the action to the the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Kent now moves to remand the case, asserting that HCL's removal was improper. Kent resides in King County and applied for a job opening to work with HCL in July 2024. Kent claims to have been"qualified to perform the position for which he applied. He alleges the posting for the job opening he applied to did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered. Kent does not allege that he received any response to his application. But he alleges that as a result of Defendants' refusal to disclose the wage scale or salary range in the job posting, he remains unable to evaluate the pay for the position and compare that pay to other available positions in the marketplace, which negatively impacts Plaintiff's current and lifetime wages. Kent alleges that he and the members of a proposed class of similarly-situated individuals lost valuable time applying for jobs with Defendants for which the wage scale or salary range was not disclosed. But he alleges only that he applied for the job, not that he spent time preparing for and participating in an interview or that he lost the ability to apply for other positions. The District Court finds that Kent lacks standing because he fails to identify a concrete injury-in-fact from HCL's failure to provide statutorily-required salary information. Although the EPOA protects concrete interests of job applicants, the District Court finds that the alleged violation Kent identifies did not cause actual harm or present a material risk of harm to that interest. The District Court separately notes that jurisdictional discovery would not be appropriate in this matter, notwithstanding HCL's request. It is apparent on the face of the Complaint that Kent lacks standing, and none of the jurisdictional discovery HCL seeks or would be entitled to would alter that calculus. The District Court finds that Kent has failed to allege an injury to a concrete interest sufficient to satisfy Article III standing. It therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and it may not preside over this matter. It remands this matter to the King County Superior Court. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rM0Dl1 HERSHEY COMPANY: Mohamed Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Abraham Mohamed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE HERSHEY COMPANY, doing business as BUBBLE YUM, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV27893 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10248. The Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, penalties, injunctive relief, and other relief from Hershey, asserting the following causes of action: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ron Rothstein, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601-9703 Phone: +1 312-558-5600 Email: RRothste@winston.com - and - Jared Kessler, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2400 Miami, Florida 33131 Phone: +1 305-910-0500 Email: JRKessler@winston.com - and - Shui Sum Lau, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 333 S. Grand Ave. Ste 3800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: +1 213-615-1700 Email: SSLau@winston.com HOME PARTNERS: Court Narrows Claims in Sheard, et al. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as DONNA SHEARD, RICHARD ALLEN, GABRIELLE TODD, GINA JOHNSON, and LIONEL JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, OPVHHJV LLC, d/b/a PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, and HPA US1 LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-CV-4012-NJR (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs' claims in Counts I and VIII are dismissed without prejudice. The Court reserves ruling on the remainder of Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiffs in this case claim they were deceived into renting "quality," "move-in ready" homes from Defendant Home Partners Holdings LLC only to discover problems like a leaky gas line, a sewage-leaking toilet, mold, no running water, a broken water heater, and a faulty furnace that spewed carbon monoxide. A tree fell on one of the homes and stayed there for three weeks. Plaintiffs further claim that when they notified Defendants about these issues, Defendant Pathlight Property Management failed to make repairs in a timely manner, if at all. Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this action on behalf of a nationwide class and an Illinois class. The proposed nationwide class (or, alternatively, an Illinois subclass) brings one count alleging Defendants charged multiple illegal fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count I), and one count for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 (Count VIII). On behalf of the Illinois class, Plaintiffs allege a violation of the ICFA (Count II), violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Count III), violation of the Illinois Landlord Tenant Act (Count IV), breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing (Count V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), and rescission (Count VII). They seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants have now moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants are corporate landlords who collectively own, lease, and manage approximately 17,000 homes in more than 80 markets across the United States. Defendants operate as alter egos of each other and as a joint entity. Home Partners purchases homes through separately incorporated LLCs, including Defendant HPA US1 LLC, while Pathlight handles the property management aspect of Defendants' rental business. The Plaintiffs in this case all signed leases with HPA US1 LLC. Defendants operate two rental programs: a "right-to-purchase" program and a "non-right-to-purchase" program. Under the NRTP program, homes already owned by Defendants are rented to tenants for one-year terms. Under the RTP program, a prospective customer finds a home listed on the market, Defendants buy the home, then the customer leases the home from Defendants for up to five years with the option to purchase it at any point. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' marketing is designed to induce prospective customers to believe that they are renting a specially chosen and quality home that is different than a traditional rental. Defendants then convince consumers to take on substantial maintenance burdens through their form leases, which illegally shift repair and maintenance obligations onto tenants. Plaintiffs also claim that Defendants do not fully disclose the additional fees that tenants will be required to pay under the lease. In Count I, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a nationwide class or, alternatively, an Illinois class, allege that the MRLP, the UBSF, and the HVAC filter fee are illegal fees under the ICFA. The Court finds that the MRLP fee is not deceptive or unfair under the ICFA. In Count I, Plaintiffs aver that the UBSF is deceptive because Defendants' websites and their "Anticipated Terms" represent the UBSF is to "reimburse for utilities and service paid for by Landlord." In this case, Plaintiffs were made aware of the UBSF within the first few pages of their leases, and they agreed to pay it. The Court finds nothing deceptive about the UBSF. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the HVAC filter fee is deceptive because it misleads tenants into believing it is their responsibility to keep the homes in compliance with state and municipal law when it is actually Defendants' responsibility. Because the terms of the lease clearly provide that the Owner is responsible for maintaining the home as required by law, Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that the HVAC Filter Fee constitutes an unfair practice, the Court concludes. Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the MRLP, UBSF, and HVAC filter fees are unfair because they have no choice but to pay them or risk eviction or non-renewal of their lease. This argument lacks merit because Plaintiffs chose to rent their homes through Defendants. In Count VIII, the only other count brought on behalf of a nationwide class, Plaintiffs seek a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 that Defendants' practices are unlawful. Because the Court has determined that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged the MRLP, USBF, and HVAC Filter Fee are deceptive or unfair under Illinois law, the nationwide class is not entitled to declaratory relief. Count VIII is dismissed as to the nationwide class. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Spr4Lf HOME PARTNERS: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Denied in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned as FRANK RICHMOND, MICHAEL MCDERMOTT and KELLEY MCDERMOTT, CHANCE GALLO, SHEILA NASILASILA, and ERIN WISE, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOME PARTNERS HOLDINGS LLC, HP WASHINGTON I LLC, HPA BORROWER 2017-1 LLC, SFR BORROWER 2022-2 LLC, SFR BORROWER 2021-2 LLC, and OPVHHJV, d/b/a PATHLIGHT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, SFR BORROWER 2021-3 LLC SFR ACQUISITIONS 3 LLC, HPA II BORROWER 2020-2 LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 22-5704-DGE-RJB (W.D. Wash.), The tenant-Plaintiffs in this case allege that the Defendants, a national real estate investment and property management conglomerate, use illegal leases and engage in practices that violate the Plaintiffs' rights under Washington's Residential Landlord Tenant Act, RCW 59.18, et. seq. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing. They seek damages, declaratory relief, and prospective injunctive relief. Plaintiffs asserted additional claims which have been dismissed. Certain grounds for their claims under the RLTA, and for the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, were dismissed. Additionally, their claims for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, et. seq., unjust enrichment, retrospective injunctive relief, rescission, restitution, and disgorgement have also been dismissed. After their first motion to certify a class was denied without prejudice, the Plaintiffs now move for a second time for class certification, appointment of class representatives, and appointment of class counsel. Defendants move to exclude Plaintiffs' damages expert. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a "Damages Class" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23 (b)(3) comprising of: A. All persons who have leased from Defendants in Washington under a written rental agreement that was active or in effect as of September 21, 2016, and who (1) were required by Defendants' leases and policies to perform or pay for routine repairs or maintenance or for wear resulting from ordinary use of the premises, specifically HVAC filter replacement, lawn/yard or irrigation system maintenance, snow or ice removal, or appliance, fireplace, chimney repair or replacement, (2) made a maintenance or repair request that was denied as "resident responsibility" or "as-is", or (3) made a maintenance or repair request to Defendants in which remediation was not commenced or promptly completed within the time limits specified by RCW 59.18.070 (the "Maintenance and Repair Subclass"). B. All persons who have leased from Defendants under a rental agreement in effect on or after September 21, 2016, and who were charged late fees (the "Late Fee Subclass"); C. All persons who have leased from Defendants under a rental agreement in effect on or after September 21, 2016, and who were charged attorneys' fees (the "Attorneys' Fee Subclass"); D. All persons who moved in on or after September 21, 2019, and from whom Defendants collected a security deposit without providing a move-in written statement or checklist conform E. All persons who moved out on or after September 21, 2019, and to whom Defendants mailed a statement without providing a full and specific statement for the reason for withholding in the time and manner specified by RCW 59.18.280 (the "Move-out Subclass"). The Plaintiffs also seek certification of an "Injunctive Class" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of: All persons who are leasing with Defendants within the State of Washington. Defendants oppose the motion to certify a class. The Defendants move to exclude the Opinions of Robert Kneuper, Ph.D., Plaintiffs' damages expert. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The Plaintiffs' motion should be granted, in part, and denied, in part. Defendants' motion should be granted. The Plaintiffs' motion for certification of a maintenance and repair subclass should be denied, the Court finds. According to the Court, the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)'s prerequisites of commonality and typicality are met. Further, they have not shown that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), the Court adds. The remaining requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 need not be addressed. The Court finds, Plaintiffs have met Rule 23's requirements for certification of both the Late Fee Subclass and Attorneys' Fees Subclass. Accordingly, the motion to certify both the Late Fee Subclass and Attorneys' Fees Subclass should be granted. The Court also finds Plaintiffs have met Rule 23's requirements for certification of a Move-In Subclass for RLTA claims based on Home Partners' collecting a deposit contrary to RCW 59.18.260(2). The Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Move-In Subclass should be granted. Plaintiffs have met Rule 23's requirements for certification of a Move-Out Subclass for RLTA violations, the Court finds. The motion to certify the Move-Out Subclass should be granted. Current-tenant Plaintiffs Gallo and Nasilasila's motion for an Injunctive Class should be granted, the Court holds. Dr. Kneuper's August 15, 2023 opinion was on the putative maintenance and repair subclass's damages. The putative maintenance and repair subclass and its claims are not suitable for class certification. Accordingly, Dr. Kneuper's opinion on Plaintiffs' classwide RLTA repair and maintenance damages claims is not "relevant to the task at hand" relating to those claims and so should be excluded, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M42a9X IME RESOURCES: Whips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against IME Resources, LLC. The case is styled as Arden Whips, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. IME Resources, LLC, Examworks Compliance Solutions, LLC, Examworks, LLC, Examworks Group, LLC, Does 1-50, Case No. 24CV023863 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." IME Resources LLC is a reputable company based in Atlanta Georgia specializing in providing a range of professional services to clients in various industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------ The case is styled as Jane Doe, Joy Zelikovsky, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc., Bonnie Harken, Joel Jahraus, Dena Cabrera, Ralph Carson, Case No. 3:23-cv-02624 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois on Nov. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01474-MMM to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. International Association of Eating Disorder Professionals Foundation Inc. is an organization that offers education and training classes for practitioners in the field of eating disorders.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven R Dunn, Esq. THE DUNN FIRM 5830 Preston Fairways Dr Dallas, TX 75252-4957 Phone: (214) 769-7810 The Defendant is represented by: James Joseph Sipchen, Esq. John H. Scheid, Esq. PRETZEL & STOUFFER CHARTERED 200 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 578-7422 Fax: (312) 346-8242 Email: dbloomfield@porterwright.com jscheid@pretzel-stouffer.com - and - Carson James Henderson, Esq. BAKER MCKENZIE 1900 N Pearl Street, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 978-3000 Fax: (214) 978-3099 - and - William N. Radford, Esq. THOMPSON COE COUSINS & IRONS LLP 700 N Pearl St 25th Floor Dallas, TX 75201-2832 Phone: (214) 871-8212 Fax: (214) 871-8209 - and - Matthew T. McLain, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: (817) 945-8025 Fax: (817) 753-3232 IRON MOUNTAIN: Melendez Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Arnulfo Melendez, Danielle Bathrick, Joshua Bressler, Kristophor Johnson, and Terrance Mott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED, THE RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF IRON MOUNTAIN INCORPORATED and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case 1:24-cv-12613 (D. Mass., Oct. 15, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Iron Mountain Incorporated ("Iron Mountain" or "Company") and the Board of Directors of Iron Mountain Incorporated and its members during the Class Period ("Board") and the Retirement Plan Committee of Iron Mountain Incorporated and its members during the Class Period ("Committee") for breaches of their fiduciary duties. To safeguard Plan participants and beneficiaries, ERISA imposes strict fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence upon employers and other plan fiduciaries. Fiduciaries must act "solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries," with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that would be expected in managing a plan of similar scope. At all times during the Class Period, the Plan had over $600 million in assets under management. At the Plan's fiscal year end in 2021 and 2020, the Plan had over $800 million and $700 million, respectively, in assets under management that were/are entrusted to the care of the Plan's fiduciaries. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to control the Plan's RKA costs. Another way in which Defendants breached their duty to Plan participants was in failing to defray reasonable expenses of administering the Plan. Their failure stems from the use of Plan participant forfeited funds to reduce Company contributions to the Plan instead of using the funds to reduce or eliminate the amounts charged to Plan participants for RKA services. This action by the Company was a clear breach of the duty of loyalty to Plan participants and cost Plan participants millions of dollars. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. Based on this conduct, Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence (Count I), breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty (Count II), breach of ERISA's Anti-Inurement Provision (Count III) and failure to monitor fiduciaries (Count IV), says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan. Iron Mountain describes itself as "A global leader in storage and information management services and trusted by more than 225,000 organizations around the world, including over 90% of the Fortune 1000."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Phone: 203-691-8762 Fax: (203) 823-4401 Email: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax: (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com J DAVID TAX: Iverson's Bid to Produce Information Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant to produce information in the lawsuit entitled LARRY R. IVERSON, et al., Plaintiffs v. J. DAVID TAX LAW, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-00718-jdp (W.D. Wis.). The Plaintiffs in this proposed class action were clients of Defendant J. David Tax Law, LLC. The Plaintiffs sued their former firm, claiming the Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices and committed malpractice by misrepresenting its lawyers' legal qualifications and falling below the standard level of care. Now before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to compel the Defendant to produce information they contend is necessary for class certification. The court initially stayed briefing on this motion to compel to focus on the Defendant's motion to dismiss and the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. The Court has now resolved those motions, defining the scope of the Plaintiffs' claims and setting the stage to resolve this discovery dispute. For reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' motion. The Defendant has two weeks from the date of this order to supplement its discovery responses. The Plaintiffs are Wisconsin residents, who engaged the Defendant, a tax law firm in Florida, to represent them in tax-related proceedings. They allege that the Defendant charged unreasonable and illegal fees, committed malpractice, and engaged in unfair trade practices. They sued the Defendant on these legal theories and asserted class action allegations. The Defendant removed this case from Wisconsin state court to this Court under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1446 and 1332(d). The Court has since ruled on two motions that affect the scope of the case. The Court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim for unreasonable and illegal fees, denied the Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations, and allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed on their two remaining claims. In doing so, the Court identified a common question for each. On the unfair-trade-practices claim, the common question is whether the Defendant falsely represented that its lawyers were licensed to practice in Wisconsin. On the malpractice claim, the common question is whether the Defendant fell below the standard of care by representing Wisconsin clients without being licensed to practice in Wisconsin. The Court also denied the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. It rejected the Plaintiffs' request to add back the previously dismissed claim for unreasonable and illegal fees. It also rejected their request to amend the scope of the proposed class to include not just the Defendant's Wisconsin clients but all of its clientele, ultimately finding the request unnecessary and premature. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs were free to reraise the scope of the class at a later stage in the case. In and around the briefing on these motions on the pleadings, the parties completed briefing the instant motion to compel. The Plaintiffs move to compel responses to six interrogatories and 17 requests for production, which the Plaintiffs sorted into five "categories of discovery." The Defendant adopted these categories in its briefing as well, so the Court uses them here: (A) J. David's retention agreements; (B) Contact information: names and addresses; (C) Case information: case names, numbers, and jurisdictions of any judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative matter or case involved; (D) Filings and communications to third parties made for such clients, such as to WDOR (Wisconsin Department of Revenue), the IRS (Internal Revenue Service), or other taxing authorities; and (E) Invoices or accountings and details of time worked, for the named Plaintiffs and each class member. After the motion was filed, the Defendant provided the Plaintiffs with supplemental discovery responses and additional documents, including templates of retainer forms it used for Wisconsin clients and information on when they were used and by approximately how many clients. On reply, the Plaintiffs contend that the supplemental responses and documents did not fully satisfy their requests. At the parties' request, the Court moved the deadline for Rule 23 class certification motions to Jan. 15, 2025. The Defendant argues that Florida Bar Rule 4-1.6 (Rule 4-1.6) precludes it from disclosing documents or information relating to its clients other than the Plaintiffs. Judge Boor holds that the Defendant's reliance on Rule 4-1.6 does not provide a bar to ordering appropriate discovery in this case. The Defendant argues, among other things, that the Plaintiffs' discovery requests cover information that is protected by attorney-client privilege, work-product protections, or both. Judge Boor notes that neither side provides any guidance as to the choice of law that governs the Defendant's privilege claims; nor do they explain how choice of law would matter. Judge Boor finds the 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 the Defendant's blanket assertions of privilege but will allow the Defendant to assert more particularized privilege claims as discovery progresses. To properly assert the claims over documents, the Defendant must log any information withheld in a privilege log that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Accordingly, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with this Opinion. The Defendant will supplement its production of requested documents in line with this Opinion within two weeks of the date of this order. The parties bear their own costs in litigating this motion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/56d2z5ek from PacerMonitor.com. JAGR LLC: Zhang Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jagr, LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Zhang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jagr, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09109 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. JAGR Construction specializes in quality and affordable interior residential & light commercial demo.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. JERSEY FIRESTOP: Class Certification Denied in Covachuela Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Zahid N. Quraishi of the United States District Court for District of New Jersey will deny the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as ORBIN COVACHUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JERSEY FIRESTOP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 20-8806 (ZNQ) (TJB) (D.N.J.) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Plaintiff Orbin Covachuela was employed as a laborer by Defendant Jersey Firestop LLC. Jersey Firestop is a New Jersey-based mechanical insulation and firestop contractor that provides firestop and insulation products and installs those products in various homes and businesses throughout the tristate area. The individual defendants, Daniel and David Hinojosa, are officers, shareholders, and directors of Jersey Firestop and were Plaintiff's direct supervisors. Plaintiff brings this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. Secs. 34:11-56a to -56a41, the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J. Stat. Ann. Secs. 34:11-4.1 to -4.15, and the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. Secs. 34:19-1, et seq. The Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's FLSA claim under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331, and supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367(a). Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on July 13, 2020 to which Defendants answered. Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint on February 19, 2021. On April 9, 2021, the Honorable Anne E. 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. Plaintiff brought three causes of action against Defendants. First, is an FLSA collective action involving himself and similarly situated persons "who were employed since the date thre years prior to the filing of th[e] Complaint and who elect to opt-in." Plaintiff contends that under provisions of the FLSA, Plaintiff and the Collective Plaintiffs were entitled to overtime compensation. The Collective Plaintiffs in the FLSA action include "no less than twelve similarly situated current and former drivers and/or laborers employed by Defendants." As alleged, these Collective Plaintiffs were not paid overtime rates for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, and Defendants engaged in an unlawful pattern of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. The second and third causes of action are brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons who were employed by Defendants since the date six years prior to the filing of the Complaint. They are: (1) a NJWHL action for overtime violations, and (2) a NJWPL action for failure to timely pay wages. Given that the parties are unable to resolve the underlying dispute, the Court now considers whether certification of Plaintiff's proposed class for the causes of action is appropriate. The Plaintiff seeks class certification under Rule 23 for non-exempt laborers employed by Defendants between July 13, 2014, and June 28, 2021, arguing that the class meets all Rule 23 requirements. Plaintiff asserts the class is sufficiently numerous, with approximately 140 easily identifiable members, and that commonality is satisfied as all members experienced the same injury—working without pay before arriving at their worksites due to Defendants' policies. Plaintiff claims his experiences are typical of the class, with a shared pattern of wrongdoing and evidence. He further argues adequacy, highlighting his counsel's experience and the absence of conflicts of interest. Lastly, Plaintiff contends a class action is the superior method for resolving the claims, given the financial constraints individual members face, and emphasizes that common liability issues predominate, particularly whether Defendants violated New Jersey wage and hour laws. Defendants argue that class certification is inappropriate because (1) Plaintiff "cannot meet his burden to establish commonality under Rule 23(a)(2), or predominance under Rule 23(b)(3)," and (2) Plaintiff cannot show that a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication." Defendants contend that commonality is not satisfied because "the vast majority of putative class members undisputedly did not participate in the activity at the center of this case," i.e., driving to the office, loading the company vehicle, and then driving to the worksites. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants employed approximately 140 laborers during the Class Period. It is alleged that many of these laborers engaged in the same type of conduct as the representative Plaintiff. That fact is more than mere speculation. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(a)'s numerosity requirement. According to the Court, the claims of the representative plaintiff and the class members are based on the NJWPL and NJWHL, and present the exact legal issues, elements, and there are common defenses. The Court is convinced that Plaintiff has proven typicality by a preponderance of the evidence. The Court finds that the representative Plaintiff has the ability and incentive to represent the putative class, and the record does not disclose any conflicts between Plaintiff and the putative class members. Plaintiff's counsel contends that he is experienced to litigate this case, and the Court agrees with Plaintiff that "there is nothing to suggest that the representative Plaintiff has any interest antagonistic to the vigorous pursuit of the Class claims against Defendants." Defendants do not dispute that class counsel is adequate to represent the interests of the class. The Court further agrees that counsel is experienced to litigate this matter and will adequately represent the class. With that background of the relevant claims, the evidence in this case establishes that Plaintiff cannot satisfy his burden to establish commonality and predominance, the Court finds. Judge Quraishi explains, "Although the putative class members are likely ascertainable and identifiable, it is unclear from the record whether the putative class members participated in the activity at the center of this case. The record illustrates that (1) some putative class members went to the office before work while others did not, and (2) some putative class members worked overtime while others did not. There is no evidence in the record that discusses which putative class members had a car independent of the company vehicle, and which putative class members went to the office prior to or after a job at a worksite, and for how long they were at the office." He adds, "Although the general common questions in this case relate to whether there are violations of the NJWPL and NJWHL, and whether Defendants had a policy that violated these statutes, whether the putative class members will be able to prove the essential elements of the claims depends on individualized evidence related to each specific putative class members' daily job duties and personal responsibilities, not common evidence. The evidence may be similar, but it is too individualized for class certification to be proper. And although Plaintiff might meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement, that requirement is subsumed in the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)." Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails commonality and predominance under Rule 23(b)(3), the Court need not address superiority or ascertainability. A copy of the Court's Opinion dated November 19, 2024, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4jUGXI JRA TRADEMARK: Martinez-Graciano Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Adilene Martinez-Graciano, on behalf of herself, the general public, and all others similarly situated v. JRA TRADEMARK COMPANY, LTD., a New York corporation; and JOHN DOES 1–10, Case No. CVRI2405399 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02529-CAS-SP. Specifically, Graciano is seeking to turn the State Court Case into a class action; requests restitution of all unjust enrichment that that JRA allegedly obtained from Graciano and the alleged class members; seeks public injunctive relief against JRA from "continuing their false reference pricing scheme in California in the future; and attorneys' fees and costs."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David L. Jordan, Esq. Jack A. Reitman, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 315 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Email: dljordan@grsm.com jreitman@grsm.com LABOR SOURCE: Bid to Reconsider Sept. 23 Class Cert Order Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Speight v. Labor Source, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00112 (E.D.N.C., Filed Aug. 12, 2021), Hon. Judge Louise Wood Flanagan entered an order denying the part of the instant motion seeking reconsideration of the part of the Court's Sept. 23, 2024, Order denying plaintiffs' motion to certify class. -- The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the court misapplied the standard for class certification in light of the evidence presented in support of their motion to certify class. -- However, the court grants in part the alternative part of plaintiffs' instant motion. -- The court allows plaintiffs leave to file a renewed motion to certify class, within 14 days of the date of this order, which seeks to certify the narrower proposed class as set forth in their memorandum in support of the instant motion. -- Consistent with the parties' joint status report, the court holds in abeyance scheduling deadlines for the remainder of the case until after adjudication of the renewed motion. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Labor Source is a nationwide staffing agency.[CC] LAMB WESTON: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, BW-SS Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- BW-SS, 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; NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD D/B/A POTATOES USA, and CIRCANA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12241 (N.D. Ill., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act, state antitrust statutes, and state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged use of their market power to leverage a temporary spike in input costs to impose lockstep price increases on their frozen potato products at supra-competitive levels. The Defendants synchronized their price increases multiple times per year since at least early-2021. As a result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy, frozen potato product prices in the United Stats have been artificially inflated through the Class Period, from January 1, 2021, to the present, causing the Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer damages, says the suit. BW-SS, Inc. is a commercial business owner, with its principal place of business in Mandan, North Dakota. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a producer, distributor, and marketer of frozen potato products, headquartered in Eagle, Idaho. Lamb Weston, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston BSW, LLC is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston Sales, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. McCain Foods Limited is a producer of frozen potato products, with its corporate headquarters in Toronto, Canada. McCain Foods USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of McCain Foods Limited based in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. J.R. Simplot Co. is a producer of frozen potato products, with its headquarters in Boise, Idaho. Cavendish Farms Ltd. is a producer of frozen potato products, with its headquarters in Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada. Cavendish Farms, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cavendish Farms Ltd., with its principal place of business in North Dakota. National Potato Promotion Board, doing business as Potatoes USA, is a trade association, with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Circana, LLC is a consumer behavior advisor, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 Email: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webber@zimmreed.com LAMPO GROUP: Hood Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Lampo Group, LLC. The case is styled as BretMichael Hood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Lampo Group, LLC doing business as: Ramsey Solutions, Case No. 0:24-cv-62232-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 22, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Lampo Group, LLC doing business as Ramsey Solutions -- https://www.ramseysolutions.com/ -- provides biblically based, commonsense education and empowerment that give HOPE to everyone in every walk of life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com LANDS' END: Spector Suit Removed to D. Arizona ---------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Karen Spector, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lands' End Incorporated, Case No. CV2024-024984 was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on Oct. 11, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02775-ROS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Personal Injury. Lands' End, Inc. -- http://investors.landsend.com/-- is a leading digital retailer of solution-based apparel, swimwear, outerwear, accessories, footwear, home products and uniforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Barrett, Esq. WARD KEENAN BARRETT PC - PHOENIX 3838 N Central Ave., Ste. 1720 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 279-1717 Fax: (602) 279-8908 Email: gbarrett@wardkeenanbarrett.com - and - Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER PA - NEW YORK, NY 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10019 Phone: (917) 776-6740 Email: ykopel@bursor.com The Defendant is represented by: Catherine North Hounfodji, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP - HOUSTON, TX 1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 4000 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 890-5120 Email: catherine.hounfodji@morganlewis.com LASIKMD USA: Ramirez Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LASIKMD USA INC. d/b/a LASIK MD VISION, Case No. 3:24-cv-02221-MMA-DDL (S.D. Cal., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought on behalf of all patients who visited us.lasikmd.com (the "Website") to book consultations for laser vision correction procedures as a resuld ot the Defendant's breach in its duties of confidentiality by unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff Ramirez's personally identifiable information and protected health information and failure to receive the requisite consent. When booking medical services online, patient privacy is crucial. Patients expect, as they should, that their information will be held in confidence and not shared with third parties without their knowledge or consent. Moreover, information concerning an individual's healthcare, including medical procedures, is protected by state and federal law. Despite these protections and Defendant's duty as a healthcare provider, Defendant aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with Facebook4 to intercept communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected medical information. Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Defendant's Website and he maintained an active Facebook account. LasikMD is one of the largest providers of Laser-Assisted In Situ Keratomileusis ("LASIK") in the United States, with its surgeons performing "over 2 million procedures in North America."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 679-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com LENS.COM INC: Fitzpatrick Suit Transferred to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mary Agrella Fitzpatrick, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LENS.COM, INC., a Nevada Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-02700 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on Nov. 26, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02203-JAD-EJY to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Contract Dispute. Lens.com -- https://www.lens.com/ -- is an online website that supplies a wide variety of contact lenses from different brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Matthew Stephens, Esq. Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq. METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: mstephens@mtattorneys.com - and - Matthew J. Herman, Esq. MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60134 Phone: (630) 232-6333 Fax: (630) 845-8982 The Defendant is represented by: Theodore J. Folkman, Esq. RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 53 State St. Boston, MS 02109 Phone: (617) 330-7135 Email: tfolkman@rubinrudman.com - and - Mark Bettilyon, Esq. Jed Hansen, Esq. THORPE NORTH & WESTERN, LLP The Walker Center 175 S. Main Street, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: (801) 566-6633 Email: mark.bettilyon@tnw.com LENS.COM INC: Two Claims in Martin Suit Transferred to Nevada Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge David S. Leibowitz of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled on the motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as captioned as RICKEY MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LENS.COM, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 24-cv-60489-DSL (S.D. Fla.). Pending before the Court are the three motions: (1) Defendant's Motion to Change Venue; (2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Plaintiff Rickey Martin is a Florida resident who purchased corrective contact lenses from Defendant Lens.com's website on five separate occasions between January and October, 2021. When making these online purchases, Martin alleges that Lens.com charged him an undisclosed, unreasonable, and unlawful processing fee in violation of the FDUPTA. Martin further alleges that Lens.com advertised one price for its contact lenses but charged 50% more than the advertised price at checkout. According to Martin, purchasers can only recoup the additional 50% charge by completing a mail-in rebate which is disclosed at checkout for the first time. Martin also alleges that Lens.com charged Florida customers "Taxes and Fees," even though the State of Florida exempts contact lens purchases from sales tax. Martin claims that the "Taxes and Fees" are unlawfully deceptive because the charge is "entirely a 'Processing' fee, which Defendant only discloses when a customer requests and receives a 'Full Receipt' from the Defendant's customer service, after the sale and payment have been finalized." From all this, Martin seeks to represent a class of "all Florida residents and consumers who, within the applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action to the date of class certification, purchased products from Defendant and paid a charge labeled "Taxes & Fees" (known to Defendant as a "Processing" fee)." Martin wants the trial of this matter to occur in South Florida. Lens.com argues by clicking certain buttons in these transactions, Martin agreed that any dispute like this would be handled in Nevada and governed by Nevada law -- not in Florida. Lens.com moves to transfer this case to Nevada pursuant to that forum-selection clause it says Plaintiff agreed to when he purchased the contact lenses online. On February 21, 2024, Martin filed his Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, asserting a FDUPTA claim (Count I); a breach of contract claim (Count II); and a claim for unjust enrichment (Count III). For relief, Martin seeks a declaration that Lens.com's practices constitute deceptive or unfair trade practices under the FDUPTA, as well as actual damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. Lens.com removed the case on March 27, 2024, invoking this Court's original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Shortly after removal, Lens.com moved to dismiss and transfer this action to Nevada pursuant to the forum-selection clause. On October 25, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the enforceability of a forum-selection clause embedded within a hyperlink, upon which Defendant moves to dismiss and transfer this Florida-filed case to Nevada. Having examined all factors (color, size, positioning, language, and overall design of the hyperlink and its accompanying text) in their totality, the Court finds Lens.com's Terms of Use hyperlink sufficiently conspicuous to put a prudent internet user on inquiry notice. Having so found, the Court considers whether Plaintiff unambiguously manifested his consent. The Court concludes that Lens.com's hybrid-wrap agreement is enforceable. As a result, the Court will enforce the forum-selection clause against Plaintiff as to his common law claims for breach of contract (Count II) and unjust enrichment (Count III). The Court, however, declines to exercise its discretion to transfer Plaintiff's FDUPTA class claims to Nevada. After considering the law on this point, it is clear that the FDUPTA class claim should not be transferred, the Court finds. Judge Leibowitz explains, "First and most fundamentally, the FDUPTA claim is an independent statutory claim completely severable, distinct, and independent of any claims arising from a contract. So, notwithstanding the Court's ruling on the enforceability of the forum-selection clause (which is a determination made under contract law principles), Plaintiff's statutory tort claim need not, and the Florida legislature and Florida courts have declared should not, travel in lockstep with his contract or quasi-contract law claims." After due consideration of the Motions, the parties' papers and arguments, the record, and the relevant law, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's Motions to Change Venue and Dismiss. Plaintiff's common law claims for breach of contract (Count II) and unjust enrichment (Count III) are transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a). However, this Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Sec. 501.201, et seq. (Count I). Finally, and in light of the other rulings, the Court denies Plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Omnibus Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sW2RjI LIBERTY MEDIA: Faces Fishel Suit Over Improper Business Conduct --------------------------------------------------------------- VLADIMIR FISHEL; KAPITALFORENINGEN SAMPENSION INVEST; GLOBALT AKTIEINDEKS; and KAPITALFORENINGEN SAMPENSION INVEST, GLOBALT AKTIEINDEKS ENHANCED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION; JOHN C. MALONE; GREGORY B. MAFFEI; EDDY W. HARTENSTEIN; JAMES P. HOLDEN; DAVID A. BLAU; ROBIN P. HICKENLOOPER; JENNIFER WITZ; EVAN MALONE; JAMES MEYER; JONELLE PROCOPE; MICHAEL RAPINO, KRISTINA SALEN; CARL E. VOGEL; and DAVID ZASLAV, Defendants, Case No. 2024-1057-KSJM (Del. Ch., Oct. 21, 2024) is an action arising from the improper business conduct of SiriusXM and Liberty Media's controlling interest (the "Transaction"). According to the complaint, Liberty Media separated Liberty SiriusXM Group ("Liberty SiriusXM Group") -- which comprised Liberty Media's ownership of SiriusXM 2 -- into a new company holding all of Liberty SiriusXM Group's assets and liabilities, which in turn acquired SiriusXM in an all-stock transaction to form "New Sirius." Former SiriusXM minority stockholders are left holding roughly 19% of New Sirius, with LSXM stockholders holding the remaining 81%. The complaint says that the transaction is palpably unfair to the SiriusXM minority stockholders and unduly favors the Company's controller, Liberty Media. The Transaction allowed Liberty Media to offload potentially massive (and largely unrelated) potential tax liabilities of Liberty Media onto New Sirius; caused New Sirius to assume almost two billion dollars of LSXM debt; and enabled Liberty Media to appoint a majority of New Sirius' board of directors with staggered terms to give Liberty Media at least three years of board-level control, despite trumpeting in public disclosures that New Sirius would not have a controlling stockholder, says the suit. Liberty Media Corporation provides broadcasting services. The Company offers media, communications, and entertainment businesses, as well as releases press. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregory V. Varallo, Esq. Benjamin M. Potts, Esq. Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 364-3600 - and - Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq. Thomas G. James, Esq. Margaret Sanborn-Lowing, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 - and - Lee D. Rudy, Esq. J. Daniel Albert, Esq. Lauren C. Lummus, Esq. Nakib A. Kabir, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 LINKEDIN CORPORATION: L. W. A. Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as L. W. A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 24CV450084 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Nov. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-08436. The Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), as well as invasion of privacy under the California Constitution.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Benjamin Berkowitz, Esq. Matan Shacham, Esq. Christina Lee, Esq. Spencer McManus, Esq. Robyn Pariser, Esq. Jonhatan A. Aragon - # 338756 KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Phone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 Email: bberkowitz@keker.com mshacham@keker.com clee@keker.com smcmanus@keker.com rpariser@keker.com jaragon@keker.com LITTLE GREENE: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Jones Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LITTLE GREENE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09072 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.littlegreene.us, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: 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 Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Little Greene Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com LIVE HYDRATION: Agnone Sues Over Website's Barriers to the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVE HYDRATION SPA IP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08196 (E.D.N.Y., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.livehydrationspa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, hidden elements on the web page, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Live Hydration Spa IP, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com LOREES LITTLE: Faces Rhyne Employment Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Lorees Little Shack, Inc. The case is captioned as Rachel Rhyne, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. LOREES LITTLE SHACK, INC., a California Corporation, Loree Lamoureaux, and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 24CV020464 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., October 8, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over Defendants' alleged violation of employment law. The case is assigned to Hon. Christopher E. Krueger. A case management conference is scheduled on November 7, 2025. Lorees Little Shack, Inc. is a restaurant based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Lewis, Esq. DREW LEWIS, PC 2999 Douglas Blvd., Suite 180 Roseville, CA 95661-4219 Telephone: (650) 665-9000 LOWE'S HOME: Gershfeld Balks at Defective Wpstbrass Air Gap Cap --------------------------------------------------------------- JACK GERSHFELD, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 30-2024-01430552-CU-MT-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., October 8, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff bring this action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, namely, all California customers of Lowe's Home Centers, LLC who purchased or caused to be purchased the Westbrass Model D201 air gap cap. The air gaps are used to connect a waste discharge water to a drain line. Their primary purpose is to prevent non-potable water from flowing backward, mixing with and contaminating potable (drinking) water. According to the complaint, the Westbrass Air Gap Caps suffer from a design defect, namely, lack of the flood level (FL) marking. This defect makes the Westbrass Air Gap Caps dangerous because without knowing the FL, it is impossible to know whether the FL has been exceeded in case of flood, thus, permitting contamination by the non-potable/waste water. The foreseeable risks of harm, i.e. contamination by the non-potable/waste water, posed by the lack of the FL marking could have been avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design, namely, placing the FL marking on the Westbrass Air Gap Caps. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC retails home improvement, building materials, and home appliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vladi Khiterer, Esq. KHITERER, INC. 2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 631-6161 E-mail: vladi@khiterer.com LUSH HANDMADE: Keskinen Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Kelly Keskinen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LLC, an Arizona limited liability company; LUSH HANDMADE COSMETICS LTD, a Canadian corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 24STCV23268 was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Oct. 11, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08860-HDV-SK. The Plaintiff alleges: "Lush violated Section 632.7 by routinely and intentionally recording conversations with consumers on their cellular telephones, without their knowledge or consent."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ana Tagvoryan, Esq. Victor Sandoval, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East | 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 424.239.3400 Facsimile: 424.239.3434 Email: ana.tagvoryan@blankrome.com victor.sandoval@blankrome.com M.R.V.L. INVESTMENTS: Settles Underpayments Class Suit for $19.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa Cavasinni of Australian Hotelier reports that Merivale has agreed to settle the underpayments class action brought against it in 2019, for $19.25m. The Merivale Class Action was commenced against M.R.V.L. Investments Pty Ltd (Merivale) in the Federal Court of Australia on 24 December 2019 on behalf of Merivale employees that were employed at any time during the period from 25 December 2013 to 24 December 2019. On Friday 29 November, Merivale agreed to pay $19.25m to resolve the case, without the admission of any liability. The funder of the class action, ICP, will receive $6.34m, $3.7m of which will be their commission and management fee, with the rest to cover expenses. Additionally, Adero Law will receive over $800,000. The rest will be divvied out to the Merivale employees in the aforementioned time period who registered for the class action. The case The claim alleged that throughout that period, a number of Merivale employees were paid less than the minimum amounts to which they were entitled under the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010. These employees included salaried workers who alleged that they were paid for 38 hours per week while being required to work at least 50-hour weeks without any overtime payments, as well as casual and salaried workers who allege that the rates that they were paid were less than their minimum entitlements. As part of the claim, Adero Law also contended that Merivale's employee agreement, created in 2007 and amended in 2009, varied from the Hospitality Award, and was not a valid one. In early 2020, a spokesperson for Merivale told TheShout: "Merivale categorically denies that any of its employees have been required to work unreasonable additional hours against their will. "Full time Merivale employees have been paid annualised salaries with hours averaged over 52 weeks as permitted under the enterprise agreement that applied to Merivale employees from 2007 until 2019 and in accordance with the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 since the agreement was terminated by consent." However on 30 March 2021 the Merivale case suffered a blow when Justice Thawley made orders that the Merivale Agreement was beyond power. In an Adero notice to group members, it argued that this judgment meant that the workers should have been paid according to the Award not the Merivale Agreement, from 25 December 2013 instead of from 4 March 2019. Merivale declined to comment on the settlement. [GN] MARCUS SAMUELSSON: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Sumlin Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARCUS SAMUELSSON GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09093 (S.D.N.Y., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.redroosterharlem.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Marcus Samuelsson Group, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN, PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, New York 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC: Carey Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Massachusetts Electric Company. The case is styled as James Carey, on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated v. Massachusetts Electric Company, Case No. 2479CV00607 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty., Oct. 11, 2024). The case type is stated as "Contract / Business." Massachusetts Electric Company is a full-service electrical contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. Ryan B. Guers, Esq. HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC One Monarch Place, Suite 1340 Springfield, MA 01144 Phone: (413)785-1400 - and - Nathan Andrew Olin, Esq. OLIN AND LIPPIELLO, LLP 76 Masonic St Northampton, MA 01060 Phone: (413)203-0010 MATCH GROUP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for January 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of securities of Match Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTCH) between May 2, 2023 and November 6, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 24, 2025 in the securities class action first filed by the Firm. SO WHAT: If you purchased Match Group securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Match Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12766 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 24, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Match Group materially understated the challenges affecting Tinder and, as a result, understated the risk that Tinder’s monthly active user count would not recover by the time the Company reported its financial results for the third quarter of 2024; and (2) as a result, defendants’ statements about Match Group’s business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Match Group class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=12766 call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] MATCH GROUP: Faruqi Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ On November 30, 2024, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a prominent national securities law firm, announced an investigation into potential claims against Match Group Inc (MTCH, Financial). The firm is encouraging investors who suffered losses exceeding $50,000 between May 2, 2023, and November 6, 2024, to contact them to discuss their legal options. The investigation centers on allegations that Match Group and its executives made false or misleading statements regarding the company's business operations, particularly concerning Tinder's user metrics and financial outlook. Investors have until January 24, 2025, to seek the role of lead plaintiff in the federal securities class action. Positive Aspects Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a well-established law firm with a strong track record in securities litigation. The firm has successfully recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its inception. Negative Aspects Match Group's stock price fell by 17.8% following disappointing financial results and outlook. Allegations of misleading statements by Match Group could damage investor trust and company reputation. Financial Analyst Perspective The announcement of a securities class action investigation against Match Group Inc (MTCH, Financial) highlights significant concerns about the company's transparency and financial disclosures. The sharp decline in stock price following the disappointing fourth-quarter outlook suggests that investors were caught off guard by the company's performance, particularly with Tinder's declining user metrics. This situation could lead to increased volatility in Match Group's stock as the legal proceedings unfold and more information becomes available. Market Research Analyst Perspective From a market research standpoint, the issues facing Match Group Inc (MTCH, Financial) underscore the challenges in the competitive online dating industry. The decline in Tinder's monthly active users and revenue per payer indicates potential market saturation or ineffective user engagement strategies. This could prompt Match Group to reassess its product offerings and marketing strategies to regain user growth and investor confidence. The outcome of the legal investigation may also influence the company's strategic direction and market positioning. Frequently Asked Questions Q: What is the deadline for investors to seek the role of lead plaintiff in the class action? A: The deadline is January 24, 2025. Q: What are the allegations against Match Group Inc? A: The allegations include making false or misleading statements about Tinder's user metrics and financial outlook. Q: How much did Match Group's stock price fall on November 7, 2024? A: The stock price fell by 17.8% to close at $31.11 per share. Q: How can affected investors contact Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP? A: Investors can contact Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [GN] MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY: Taylor Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Christina Taylor, on her own behalf and as a Parent and Natural Guardian of I.H., a Minor v. Mead Johnson & Company LLC, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, Abbott Laboratories, Case No. 2:24-cv-05835 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11764 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC -- https://www.meadjohnson.com/ -- is an American company that is a leading manufacturer of infant formula, both domestically and globally, with its flagship product Enfamil.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tracy Ann Finken, Esq. ANAPOL WEISS 130 North 18th. Street, Suite 1600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-0773 Email: tfinken@anapolweiss.com The Defendants are represented by: Catherine M. Recker, Esq. Richard D. Walk, III, Esq. WELSH & RECKER, P.C. 306 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 972-6430 Email: CMRecker@welshrecker.com rwalk@welshrecker.com - and - Joseph E. O'Neil, Esq. LAVIN O'NEIL CEDRONE & DISIPIO 190 N Independence Mall West 6th & Race Sts, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 627-0303 joneil@lavin-law.com - and - Marques Hillman Richeson, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 586-7195 mhricheson@jonesday.com - and - Ronni Ellen Fuchs, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square 18th & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4000 ronni.fuchs@troutman.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Archer Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Phone: (215) 981-4335 MERCK & CO: Gardiner Sues Over Asbestos-Containing Talc Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sargent Gardiner and Aimee Gardiner, and others similarly situated v. MERCK & CO. INC., NOVARTIS CORPORATION, PFIZER, INC., Case No. 190272/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought for pain and suffering suffered as a proximate result of the Plaintiff's regular and prolonged use of, inhalation, ingestion, absorption, and/or exposure to asbestos-containing talc and talcum powder products ("Products") including but not limited to, Desenex body and foot powders, Dr. Scholl's foot powders, and Johnson & Johnson body powders. The Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from asbestos-containing talc in the PRODUCTS from 1979 to 2019. During this time he repeatedly inhaled, ingested, absorbed, and was regularly exposed to asbestos dust emanating from the asbestos-containing talc within the PRODUCTS. This was an intended and foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS based on the advertising, marketing, and labeling of the PRODUCTS. The Plaintiff was exposed on numerous and frequent occasions to the PRODUCTS which were mined, milled, produced, processed, designed, manufactured, marketed, tested, compounded, mixed, supplied, delivered, distributed, sold and/ or lobbied for by the Defendants. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' reckless, callous, calculated, and reprehensible conduct, Plaintiff was injured and suffered damages, namely Mesothelioma, which required or will require surgeries and treatments. At the time of his diagnosis, Plaintiff was 53 years old, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was diagnosed with Mesothelioma on January 2022 as a result of his exposure to talc products containing asbestos. MERCK & CO. INC. is a duly organized foreign corporation doing business and/or transacting business in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin T. Clinton, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 558-5500 MERRILL LYNCH: Bid to Seal Confidential Info in Vallely Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sarah Valelly, v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 1:19-cv-07998-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Caproni entered an order granting the Plaintiff and Defendant's motion to seal and/or redact confidential information, in accordance with the dates and procedures identified below, which are intended to supplement Rule 5(B) of the Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases. Similar to the approach that the parties and the Court took in connection with the earlier summary judgment briefing, as well as the Daubert, class certification, and reconsideration briefing, in order to minimize the number of court filings and disputes regarding confidentiality that the Court will need to resolve, and to allow counsel sufficient time to confer with their clients about proposed redactions, the parties propose as follows: 1) The parties will serve, by email rather than on ECF, their papers by the deadlines reflected in the Scheduling Order. 2) The parties will meet and confer within four business days after service to discuss the need to redact or seal any portions of their papers. 3) The party seeking redaction or sealing with respect to papers to be efiled by another party shall provide the other party proposed public versions of all such papers, with metadata scrubbed. 4) Within ten business days after service by email reflected above, the parties who had served the papers by email will file on ECF both the confidential and public versions of the papers originally served by email, however, with respect to reply papers, the parties will work collaboratively and in good faith to e-file such papers promptly after the email service date, in order to expedite the formal submission date of the motion. 5) Contemporaneous with these ECF filings, the parties will file joint letter(s) pursuant to Rule 5(B)(iii) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules reflecting the parties’ respective positions on whether the material should be sealed or redacted. Merrill Lynch is an American investment management and wealth management division of Bank of America. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1egIdI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Adam J. Blander, Esq. Philip M. Black, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Mishkin, Esq. Lara Samet Buchwald, Esq. Cristina M. Rincon, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-400 MG FREESITES: Plaintiffs File Class Notice, Creates Claims Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levin Law reports that the class action lawsuit Doe #1 v. MG Freesites LTD et al., has reached an important milestone with the filing of the official class notice and the launch of the MindGeek Claims Administrator website, VictimImageLawsuit.com. The case, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, marks a pivotal effort to address allegations of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on popular pornographic platforms operated by MindGeek, including Pornhub, Redtube, and YouPorn. "If you were under the age of 18 and appeared in a photo or video on sites like Pornhub, Redtube, YouPorn, XTube, Tube8, or others, your rights are affected by this lawsuit," the Doe vs. MindGeek website states. Background on the MindGeek Class Action The lawsuit, originally filed in 2021, alleges that MindGeek and its affiliated entities knowingly benefited from the possession and distribution of CSAM on their platforms. The suit claims violations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and other federal laws prohibiting the receipt and distribution of child pornography. Judge L. Scott Coogler, who oversees the case, has certified the lawsuit as a class action. This certification enables individuals who fit the class definition to participate collectively in seeking justice. Specifically, the class includes anyone who appeared in a video or image on the defendants' platforms while under the age of 18, from February 12, 2011, to the present. "This lawsuit sheds light on the pervasive exploitation occurring on these platforms. It's a fight not just for justice for the victims but for systemic change in how online platforms operate." -- Kim Adams, Attorney, Levin Papantonio Scope of the Class Action The notice outlines the extensive scope of the lawsuit, targeting numerous websites, including: -- Pornhub.com -- Pornhubpremium.com -- Redtube.com -- Redtubepremium.com -- YouPorn.com -- YouPornpremium.com -- Tube8.com -- Mofosex.com -- ExtremeTube.com -- Spankwire.com -- Keezmovies.com -- Thumbzilla.com -- Xtube.com According to the lawsuit, the defendants created a business model that allowed for the rampant uploading and monetization of CSAM, while allegedly failing to implement sufficient safeguards to prevent this exploitation. This case represents a groundbreaking effort to hold MindGeek accountable for allegedly profiting from illegal content. Levin Papantonio, one of the law firms the Court has appointed as "Class Counsel," emphasizes the broader impact of this litigation. Your Legal Rights and Options Affected individuals have until December 6, 2024, to decide their course of action. The notice provides two primary options: 1. Do Nothing and Stay in the Class Remaining in the class allows individuals to benefit from any potential monetary award or injunctive relief resulting from a trial or settlement. However, this option also means relinquishing the right to sue MindGeek independently over similar claims. 2. Exclude Yourself from the Class (Opt-Out) Those who opt out retain the ability to pursue individual claims against the defendants but forfeit any potential benefits from this lawsuit. To opt out, individuals must complete and submit the provided exclusion form by the deadline. Class Counsel will need to present evidence to prove the Plaintiff's claims during a trial. The trial date has not yet been set. At the trial, the judge and jury will review all the evidence to determine whether the Plaintiff or the Defendants are correct regarding the legal claims in the case. Launch of the MindGeek Claims Administrator Website To streamline communication and provide resources for potential class members, the MindGeek Claims Administrator has launched VictimImageLawsuit.com. The website serves as a centralized hub for affected individuals to: -- Verify their eligibility for the class. -- Access the complete list of MindGeek-owned websites involved in the case. -- Review the official notice and other important documents. -- Learn how to exercise their legal rights, whether by remaining in the class or opting out. The website also features a comprehensive FAQ section addressing common questions, including details about the lawsuit's claims, the potential timeline for resolution, and what participants can expect moving forward. For additional support, individuals can contact the claims administrator directly via a toll-free hotline or email. Implications of the Lawsuit This case represents a groundbreaking effort to hold MindGeek accountable for allegedly profiting from illegal content. Levin Papantonio, one of the law firms the Court has appointed as "Class Counsel," emphasizes the broader impact of this litigation. "This lawsuit sheds light on the pervasive exploitation occurring on these platforms," said Kim Adams, attorney at Levin Papantonio. "It's a fight not just for justice for the victims but for systemic change in how online platforms operate." The class action lawsuit and the establishment of VictimImageLawsuit.com come in response to mounting concerns over the inadequacy of content moderation practices on adult websites. Advocacy groups and legal experts have long criticized the apparent ease with which harmful content, including CSAM, can be uploaded and shared. By bringing these issues into the courtroom, the plaintiffs aim to secure both financial compensation for victims and enforce stricter industry regulations. Next Steps for Potential Class Members If you or someone you know fits the criteria of the class definition, it is crucial to review the information available on VictimImageLawsuit.com. Potential class members should carefully weigh their options, keeping in mind the upcoming deadlines and the possibility of a trial. Those who choose to participate in the class action will be represented collectively by the legal team appointed by the court, which includes seasoned attorneys experienced in complex litigation involving corporate accountability and human rights violations. Looking Ahead While the outcome of this lawsuit remains uncertain, its implications are far-reaching. The case underscores the urgent need for reform in the adult content industry and serves as a stark reminder of the devastating impact of online exploitation. For the plaintiffs, this class action represents a unified stand against systemic abuse and a call for justice that has long been overdue. For more information, visit VictimImageLawsuit.com or contact the claims administrator at 1-888-897-1858. [GN] MICROSOFT CORP: Faces First UK Class Action Over AI Data -------------------------------------------------------- Decision Marketing reports that Manchester-based Barings Law is aiming to sign up Brits to the legal claim for a myriad of data misuses, including collecting extensive information about users' voices, demographics, time spent on apps, personal details such as email addresses, contents of emails and more. The legal firm claims to have been investigating the issue for almost two years and insists that a large array of data is being stored and shared to develop large language models. The firm has now launched a national marketing campaign targeting anyone with a Microsoft or Google account or those who have used their services, potentially tens of millions of Brits. These platforms include but are not limited to YouTube, Gmail, Gmail messages, Google Docs, browsing history, map searches, docs, LinkedIn, OneDrive, Outlook, Microsoft 365, Xbox and more. Data Protection authorities across Europe have been quick to stamp out this data grab. In September, LinkedIn caved into pressure over its AI scheme following an intervention from the UK's Information Commissioner's Office. The company joined Meta, X, and Google to either suspend or scrap their programmes on the back of claims they have been using user data without consent. Privacy organisation NOYB, backed by Austrian lawyer Max Schrems, has also lodged complaints about ChatGPT pioneer OpenAI, claiming it is in breach of GDPR. Barings Law plans to issue court proceedings at the beginning of 2025. The cyber security specialist firm has extensive experience in high-profile data breach cases, including the Capita cyber-attack, and it recently settled a high-profile data protection claim. Barings Law head of data breach Adnan Malik said the team are well prepared to take on the mammoth tech companies. He explained: "This case is the Everest of data collection, but we are ready to fight for the right of secure privacy for Microsoft and Google users throughout the UK. We are shocked and disgusted to learn about the level of data that has been and continues to be collected. "Both companies are collecting data such as the sports teams you follow, the programming languages you prefer, the stocks you track, your local weather or traffic, the route you take to work and what your voice sounds like. Malik emphasised that the development of AI must not come at the cost of privacy. He added: "Individuals have the right to know what data of theirs is being stored and what it is being used for. They also have the right to opt out of their behaviours, voice, likeness, habits and knowledge being used to train AI -- for the profit of tech giants. "As technologies continue to develop, individual data has become the most valuable commodity in the world. We know that it's illegal to steal commodities like money, gold, oil. As a society we cannot accept that it's acceptable to steal the commodity of personal data." OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, and Microsoft are already facing a $3bn class action in the US, over so-called "data scraping". Malik concluded: "If you are shocked, upset, appalled, or annoyed that your data is being used without your knowledge and consent, my message to you is simple -- do something about it by joining the fight. Let's take the future of our data and AI into our own hands." [GN] MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Action Over Hair Oil Side Effects -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that a hair oil consumer is suing Mielle Organics LLC and The Procter & Gamble Company. Why: The plaintiff claims the companies' Mielle Organics Rosemary Mint Scalp & Strengthening Hair Oil causes hair loss. Where: The Mielle Organics class action was filed in Illinois federal court. Mielle Organics and its parent company have been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging their popular Mielle Organics Rosemary Mint Scalp & Strengthening Hair Oil causes hair loss. Plaintiff Georgina Gomes filed the class action complaint against Mielle Organics LLC and The Procter & Gamble Company on Nov. 21 in an Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the lawsuit, the companies are misleading consumers by promoting the hair oil as safe while failing to disclose harmful side effects. Gomes alleges that the hair oil contains ingredients that have caused her and other users significant hair loss. According to the lawsuit, neither the product's labeling nor marketing materials disclose these risks. Instead, the companies allegedly marketed the product as safe and effective for hair strengthening. Gomes states that she would not have purchased the product -- or would have paid significantly less for it -- had she known about the potential harm. Companies didn't properly test the hair oil, lawsuit alleges The lawsuit says the companies neglected their duty to test the product adequately to ensure it was free of harmful ingredients. "Defendants knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced a harmful and/or misbranded product into the U.S. market," the complaint says. Gomes claims the hair oil has left her and other consumers with financial losses and emotional distress over hair damage. "No reasonable consumer would have paid any amount for a cosmetic product that contained ingredients causing hair loss or containing a high risk of causing hair loss," the lawsuit says. As a result, Gomes is looking to represent anyone who bought the hair oil nationwide. She is suing for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer fraud laws and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, L'Oreal is facing a class action lawsuit claiming that its CeraVe benzoyl peroxide cleanser contains a dangerous level of the carcinogenic chemical benzene. The plaintiff is represented by James M. Dore and Daniel I. Schlade of the Dore Law Offices LLC. The Mielle Organics class action is Georgina Gomes v. Mielle Organics LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-12019 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] MK DRAYAGE: Seeks to Strike Vasquez Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Edwin Vasquez, et al., v. MK Drayage Inc. and Best Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-09983-SDW-MAH (D.N.J.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike Class Certification. 1. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging they worked overtime but were not paid for the same such that they are due back overtime pay, among other losses. 2. Plaintiffs contend there are other claimants and therefore a class should be certified regarding this issue. 3. To that end, Plaintiffs make numerous assertions regarding start dates, the nature of their job, the terms of their employment, and their job responsibilities and assert the same are applicable to other potential class members. 4. A class action may only be maintained under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) where “the court finds that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” 5. A court may strike a class when the issues are “plain enough from the pleadings.” Gen Tel. Co. of S.W. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D). 6. It is clear from the record that the class members either listed dates wherein they did not work for MK Drayage because MK Drayage was not operating in New Jersey at the time or misrepresented their job titles and hours worked in order to make a class certification seem proper under the law. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h0YuEg at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: William M. Brennan, Esq. CIPRIANI & WERNER, P.C. Attorney ID# 015232009 450 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (610) 567-0700 E-mail: wbrennan@c-wlaw.com MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Krayzman Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ LARION KRAYZMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02974-E (N.D. Tex., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, declaratory relief, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within its network systems following a data breach in September 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. is a money transfer and payment services provider with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E. Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 461-6400 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com - and - James F. Clapp, Esq. CLAPP & LAUINGER LLP 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Telephone: (760) 209-6565 Email: jclapp@clapplegal.com MONEYGRAM PAYMENT: Namata Files Suit in N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moneygram Payment Systems Inc. The case is styled as Mosima Namata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Moneygram Payment Systems Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-02571-X (N.D. Tex., Oct. 11, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Injury. MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. -- https://www.moneygram.com/ -- provides money transfer and payment services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Mark Lanier, Esq. THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C. 10940 W. Sam Houston Pkwy N Houston, TX 77064 Phone: (713) 659-5200 Facsimile: (713) 659-2204 Email: Mark.Lanier@LanierLawFirm.com - and - Lisa A. Blue, Esq. BARON & BLUE 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75219 Phone: (214) 969-7373 Fax: (214) 969-7648 Email: lblue@baronandblue.com MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Niman Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bethany Niman, et. al. v. Montana University System and Clayton Christian, Case No. 9:23-cv-00079-DWM (D. Mont.), the Hon. Judge Donald Molloy entered an order: -- denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and -- granting Defendants' motion to deny class certification. The Defendants are correct that certification is not appropriate "because individual issues of causation will predominate over common ones when evaluating whether" putative class members qualify as Montana residents. The Plaintiffs' "waiver" argument ignores the fact that the Plaintiff have not shown-nor it is likely that they can ever show-that every single putative class member would have qualified for in-state tuition but-for the professional student provisions. Certification is therefore not appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs have sued the Montana Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian, as well as individual members of the Montana Board of Regents and UM registrars, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 based on a residency policy that denies bona fide residents of Montana in-state tuition at its universities. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of: "all professional students charged out-of-state tuition from three years before the filing of the complaint to present." University of Montana is a public flagship research university in Missoula known for academic rigor, experiential learning, and inclusive culture. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dsDC8X at no extra charge.[CC] MORTGAGEPROS LLC: Chen Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mortgagepros, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Richard Chen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mortgagepros, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:24-cv-08763-JLS-E (C.D. Cal., Oct. 11, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Mortgagepros, LLC -- https://mtgpros.com/ -- is a a leading mortgage company who specialize in refinance, traditional home loans, FHA loans, and VA loans and provide competitive HELOC Rates.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21031 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364-6522 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS: Burnett Seeks Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RHONDA BURNETT, JEROD BREIT, HOLLEE ELLIS, FRANCES HARVEY, and JEREMY KEEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, REALOGY HOLDINGS CORP., HOMESERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., BHH AFFILIATES, LLC, HSF AFFILIATES, LLC, RE/MAX LLC, and KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion and suggestions in support of final approval of settlements: The Settlement Agreements in this action with NAR, HomeServices, and opting in entities achieve the goals of the litigation, benefit the Settlement Class, and account for the risks and uncertainties of continued, vigorously contested nationwide litigation. The Settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate, and merit final approval. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court certify the Settlement Class, consider and overrule all objections to the Settlements, grant final approval of the Settlements, approve the requested attorneys' fees and expenses, and enter a final judgment as to the Settling Defendants. The Plaintiffs will also submit a Proposed Final Approval Order for consideration by the Court. The Settlement Class definition satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the Settlement Class for settlement purposes. The Plaintiffs seek final approval of proposed settlements with the Defendants. These Settlements together comprise a total settlement fund of almost $700 million. The proposed Settlement Class in the NAR Settlement Agreement includes all persons who sold a home that was listed on a multiple listing service anywhere in the United States where a commission was paid to any brokerage in connection with the sale of the home in the following date ranges: -- Homes listed on Moehrl MLSs: March 6, 2015 to date of Class Notice; -- Homes listed on Burnett MLSs: April 29, 2014 to date of Class Notice; -- Homes listed on MLS PIN: Dec. 17, 2016 to date of Class Notice; -- Homes in Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri, but not on the Moehrl MLSs, the Burnett MLSs, or MLS PIN: Oct. 31, 2018 to date of Class Notice; -- Homes in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, but not on the Moehrl MLSs, the Burnett MLSs, or MLS PIN: Oct. 31, 2017 to date of Class Notice; -- For all other homes: Oct. 31, 2019 to date of Class Notice. The proposed Settlement Class in the HSA Settlement Agreement includes all persons who sold a home that was listed on a multiple listing service anywhere in the United States where a commission was paid to any brokerage in connection with the sale of the home in the following date ranges: a. Moehrl MLSs: March 6, 2015 to date of notice; b. Burnett MLSs: April 29, 2014 to date of notice; c. MLS PIN: Dec. 17, 2016 to date of notice d. All other MLSs: Oct. 31, 2019 to date of notice. Settlement Amounts The proposed Settlements provide that the Settling Defendants will pay the following amounts for the benefit of the Settlement Class, for a total of $698,587,754.00: -- NAR: $418 million -- HomeServices Defendants: $250 million -- NAR Settlement Opt-ins: $30,587,754 National Association is an American trade association for those who work in the real estate industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Nov. 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FypgEW at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Rio S. Pierce, Esq. Jeannie Evans, Esq. Nathan Emmons, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com riop@hbsslaw.com jeannie@hbsslaw.com nathane@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert A. Braun, Esq. Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Sabrina Merold, Esq. Daniel Silverman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rbraun@cohenmilstein.com smerold@cohenmilstein.com dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. Matthew R. Berry, Esq. Floyd G. Short, Esq. Alexander W. Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com mberry@susmangodfrey.com fshort@susmangodfrey.com aaiken@susmangodfrey.com - and - Michael Ketchmark, Esq. Scott McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK AND MCCREIGHT P.C. 11161 Overbrook Rd. Suite 210 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266-4500 E-mail: mike@ketchmclaw.com smccreight@ketchmclaw.com - and - Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Michael A. Williams WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7110 Facsimile: (816) 945-7118 E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 E-mail: brandon@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com NESTLE PURINA: Most Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Ryan Most, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY, Case No. 2024LA001255 was removed from the Circuit Court for DuPage County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-12206. This case is a putative class action alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act ("ILCFA"), common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, based on Plaintiff's allegations that Purina labels certain of its Friskies Party Mix Natural Yums products as containing "No Artificial Flavors Colors or Preservatives," when in fact they contain phosphoric acid and citric acid, which Plaintiff contends are artificial preservatives.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keri E. Borders, Esq. Rebecca B. Johns, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 633 W. Fifth St., 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 443-4355 Email: kborders@kslaw.com rjohns@kslaw.com - and - Livia M. Kiser, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 110 N Wacker Drive, Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 995-6333 Email: lkiser@kslaw.com NEVADA: Olteanu Must File Complete Amended Complaint by Dec. 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Andreea Melissa Olteanu, Plaintiff v. Louis Schneider, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-02006-RFB-DJA (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada gives the Plaintiff until Dec. 23, 2024, to file a complete amended complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma pauperis. On Sept. 27, 2024, the Court gave the Plaintiff until Oct. 28, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Oct. 11, 2024. She filed another, slightly different amended complaint that same day. On Oct. 17, 2024, she filed exhibits to her amended complaints. On Oct. 21, 2024, she filed more exhibits to her amended complaints. On Oct. 25, 2024, she filed an addendum to her amended complaints. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Plaintiff moved to join additional Defendants. On Nov. 13, 2024, she moved to join the Estate of Mark Porcelli--for which Estate she claims she is the executrix--as a party. She also filed an "emergency motion for execution of writ of mandamus and enforcement of interim payment due." Judge Albregts notes that the Plaintiff attempts to bring her claims and add parties through various filings and motions. But the Court will not piecemeal documents together to determine whether the Plaintiff states a colorable claim in her complaint. Therefore, the Court will not screen the Plaintiff's amended complaints, exhibits, and addendum and will deny her motions to join additional Defendants and to join the estate of Mark Porcelli. The Court will give the Plaintiff one more opportunity to submit a complete amended complaint. The Plaintiff's complaint must contain all defendants; all factual allegations that she wishes to include in this lawsuit; and if she brings the action as executrix of the Estate of Mark Porcelli, the legal basis for her to do so. The Plaintiff is not required to file exhibits with her amended complaint, but if she does, they must be filed with the amended complaint. The Court also denies the Plaintiff's "emergency motion for execution of writ of mandamus and enforcement of interim payment due." As the Honorable District Judge Richard F. Boulware explained in his order denying the Plaintiff's previously-filed requests for writ of mandamus, because there is no operative complaint, the Court cannot consider her submissions seeking mandamus. The Plaintiff's remaining requests--that the Court sanction the Defendants, to include the Estate of Mark Porcelli as a co-plaintiff, for the Court to permit a class action, for a temporary restraining order, for a preliminary injunction, for declaratory judgment, for damages, and for an investigation--have either already been addressed by the Court, are more appropriately brought in an amended pleading, or are not supported by any legitimate legal basis. The Court, therefore, orders that the Plaintiff will have until Dec. 23, 2024, to file a complete amended complaint. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the recommended dismissal of this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to send the Plaintiff a copy of this order. The Plaintiff's motions to join additional defendants, to join the Estate of Mark Porcelli, and for execution of writ of mandamus and enforcement of interim payment due are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3df4x9r4 from PacerMonitor.com. NEW YORK, NY: Plaintiffs Submit Memorandum in Support of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DAHKEEM MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-2616 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has received from plaintiffs' counsel a Supplemental Memorandum in Support of the Motion to Certify the Class, Grant Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement, Appoint Class Counsel, Approve Class Representative Service Awards, and Approve Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court allows further submissions regarding the requested relief. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5zynwm7v NEWARK GROUP: Motion for Leave to Amend in Ryan, et al Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Margaret R. Guzman of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied the motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as THOMAS RYAN, SUSAN RYAN, SEAN GALLAGHER, ASHLEY SULTAN GALLAGHER, MICHELE BURT, NANCY DONAOVAN, and LAUREN LAUDE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEWARK GROUP, INC., MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL FERTILIZER CO., INC., OTTER FARM, INC., SEAMAN PAPER COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., and 3M COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-40089-MRG (D. Mass.) On August 2, 2022, Plaintiffs Thomas Ryan, Susan Ryan, Sean Gallagher, Ashley Sultan Gallagher, Michele Burt, Nancy Donovan, and Lauren Ladue filed this putative class action against Defendants Greif, Inc., Caraustar Industries, Inc., The Newark Group, Inc., Massachusetts Natural Fertilizer Company, Inc., Otter Farm, Inc., and Seaman Paper Company of Massachusetts, Inc. to recover damages for the contamination of their groundwater, which was allegedly caused by the decades-long improper disposal of wastes containing per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances and their constituents at the MassNatural recycling and composting facility in Westminster, Massachusetts. On February 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint adding 3M Company for its role as an upstream manufacture of PFAS. Before the Court are several motions from the Moving Defendants (Newark, Seaman Paper, and Otter Farm) and 3M to join over fifteen (15) new entities as crossclaim defendants. Additionally, the Plaintiffs have moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint seeking to join several new parties. All parties' motions for leave to amend are denied. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and denies each of the Moving Defendants' motions to amend their answers to join crossclaim defendants. The Court's decision is based on multiple considerations, but most salient are: (1) the motions to amend are untimely, (2) the Moving Defendants' allegations against some of the proposed entities do not derive from the same transaction or occurrence as the Plaintiffs' claims, and (3) some of the crossclaims would be futile as they would not withstand a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1n0YDK NEWREZ LLC: Moody Files Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newrez, LLC. The case is styled as Janice Moody, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Newrez, LLC doing business as: Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 1:24-cv-05406-ELR-CMS (N.D. Ga., Nov. 22, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit for the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Newrez LLC (Newrez) -- https://www.newrez.com/ -- is a leading nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 434-3901 Email: matt@kellyguzzo.com NOBULL LLC: Jones Sues Over Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NOBULL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09072 (S.D.N.Y., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.nobullproject.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: 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 Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Nobull, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NORDSEC LTD: Court Dismisses Hanscom Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Judge Kenneth D. Bell of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned as DENNIS HANSCOM, Plaintiff, v. NORDSEC LTD.; TEFINCOM S.A.; NORDSEC B.V.; NORD SECURITY INC.; AND NORDVPN S.A., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00277-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C.). Defendant Nordvpn S.A. and its affiliates NordSec Ltd, NordSec B.V., Nord Security Inc., and Tefincom S.A. are broadly 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. Plaintiff filed this proposed class action under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on March 5, 2024, asserting claims for violation of the North Carolina Automatic Renewal Law, N.C.G.S. Sec. 75-41, et seq. and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, N.C.G.S. Sec. 75-1.1, et seq. as well as common law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The class Plaintiff seeks to represent includes "all Nord customers in the United States who were subjected to Defendants' misleading subscription practices" and subclasses of North Carolina residents who were "automatically enrolled into and charged for at least one month of Nord membership." Plaintiff alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over his claims pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the class exceed $5,000,000, the class has more than 100 members, and diversity of citizenship exists between at least one member of the class and Defendants. Also, to the extent Plaintiff lacks jurisdiction under CAFA, he asks the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367. With respect to damages, Plaintiff seeks an award of compensatory damages of at least $100,000,000; an injunction or other appropriate equitable relief requiring Defendants to refrain from engaging in the deceptive practices alleged; an award of punitive damages and other related relief. On July 3, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, arguing, in part, that Plaintiff lacked standing because he had canceled his subscription before it "auto renewed" and thus had suffered no concrete harm. . Plaintiff obtained an extension of time to respond to the motion and then, on July 31, 2024, filed an Amended Complaint instead of defending the initial version. In the FAC, Plaintiff dropped his claim for negligent misrepresentation and acknowledged, for the first time, that Nord had refunded all the payments he had made. However, he alleged that Nord "wrongfully retained Plaintiff's funds from August 15, 2023, until September 28, 2023" and "Plaintiff was further damaged by the lost time value of his funds between August 15, 2023 and September 28, 2023." The FAC does not allege when (or if) Plaintiff actually paid the credit card bill on which the initial charge appeared. Otherwise, the FAC asserted the same causes of action on behalf of the same proposed classes with the same alleged damages. The assertion of federal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA also remained the same. Defendants filed a second Motion to Dismiss on August 21, 2024, requesting that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff argues that he has standing to pursue all his claims based on his alleged loss of the "time value" of not receiving the refund of his subscription payment immediately upon canceling his subscription on August 15, 2023 (i.e., the 44-day period until September 28, 2023, when the refund was made). The Court disagrees. According to the Court, even without the benefit of any allegations detailing if/when Plaintiff actually paid for the subscription and ignoring any reasonable period during which Nord would presumably be entitled to process refunds without legal jeopardy, Plaintiff's maximum "time value" loss (generously calculated with a 5% discount rate) would be less than a dollar (44/365 x 132 x .05 = .80). This alleged "injury" is insufficient to support standing. The Court notes Plaintiff canceled his subscription before it renewed and he was given a refund of his initial payment months before this action was initiated. The Court finds that Plaintiff has not suffered a concrete injury sufficient to give him standing to pursue this action and that he has not established that a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs would meet the required monetary threshold to support diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). However, the Court does not reach and expresses no opinion on the lawfulness of Defendants' business practices or Defendants' other arguments. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=buQcG0 OPTICS FORCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OPTICS FORCE, LLC,, Case No. 1:24-cv-09002 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.opticsforce.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ORTHOFIX MEDICAL: O'Hara Suit Transferred to E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tommy O'Hara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ORTHOFIX MEDICAL INC., JON C. SERBOUSEK, DOUGLAS C. RICE, CATHERINE M. BURZIK, WAYNE BURRIS, JASON M. HANNON, JAMES F. HINRICHS, LILLY MARKS, MICHAEL E. PAOLUCCI, JOHN E. SICARD, THOMAS A. WEST, KEITH C. VALENTINE, KIMBERLEY A. ELTING, and PATRICK L. KERAN, Case No. 3:24-cv-01593 was transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00979-JRG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities. Orthofix Medical Inc. -- https://orthofix.com/ -- operates as a spine and orthopedics company in the United States, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com - and - David W. Hall, Esq. THE HALL FIRM, LTD. Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 Email: dhall@hallfirmltd.com OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Operators ---------------------------------------------------------------- KINGSTON OSBORNE and DAVID SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00439 (S.D. Ala., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Osborne and Mr. Smith were employed by the Defendants as a logistics operator and an operator since 2014 and 2011, respectively. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC is a stainless steel production company in Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 Email: bclark@wigginschilds.com - and - Ian D. Rosenthal, Esq. DAVIS, DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 27180 Pollard Road Daphne, AL 36526 Telephone: (251) 621-1555 Email: ian@ddalawfirm.com PDR NETWORK: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in Carlton Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert C. Chambers of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division grants the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the lawsuit styled CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC, INC., a West Virginia corporation, individually and as a representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. PDR NETWORK, LLC, PDR DISTRIBUTION, LLC, PDR EQUITY, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-14887 (S.D.W. Va.). Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of Defendants PDR Network, LLC, and PDR Distribution, LLC, and PDR Equity, LLC (collectively referred to as "PDR Network"). Plaintiff Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., opposes the motion. On Sept. 6, 2023, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its most recent decision in this case's lengthy procedural history. In vacating and remanding this Court's dismissal of the First Amended Complaint Class Action Complaint, the Fourth Circuit found that the Plaintiff adequately alleged that an unsolicited fax from PDR Network offering a free eBook with information about prescription drugs had the necessary commercial character to make it an "unsolicited advertisement" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) (Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, LLC, 80 F.4th 466, 470 (4th 2023) (PDR VI)). In its decision, the Fourth Circuit stated that the key issue is whether a fax that touts the "quality" of a "good" that is offered for free, rather than at a price, can fall within the TCPA's definition of an "unsolicited advertisement." As explained in prior opinions, the fax at issue was sent to the Plaintiff, a chiropractic office, in 2013 by PDR Network, the publishers of the Physicians' Desk Reference(R) (PDR). The PDR lists certain prescription drugs with the prescribing information, and pharmaceutical companies pay the PDR Network for their drugs to be included as a listing. PDR Network then distributes the pharmaceutical companies' listings to healthcare providers. In March 2021, the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Class Action Complaint, alleging new theories of recovery. One theory is "that PDR Network effectively earned a commission for each successful promotion of an eBook by way of fax, because the amount paid by drug companies to have their products included in the Physicians' Desk Reference turned on the number of eBook versions distributed." Upon motion of PDR Network, the Court dismissed these claims by Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on Feb. 8, 2022 (Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, LLC v. PDR Network, LLC, Civ. Act. No. 3:15-14887, 2022 WL 386097 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 8, 2022)). In deciding whether dismissal was proper, the Fourth Circuit held the term "advertisement" under the TCPA "is limited to faxes that are 'commercial in nature.'" The Fourth Circuit explained that an advertisement is more than something just transmitting information, it is transmitting information with a "commercial nexus" to the sender's business. Applying this definition to the First Amended Class Action Complaint's new theories of recovery, the Fourth Circuit found the Plaintiff's claim that PDR Network is paid a commission based upon how many eBooks are distributed, assuming its truth, sufficiently alleges a commercial component to survive a motion to dismiss. The Fourth Circuit highlighted the fact the fax promoted the "quality" of the eBook to benefit a recipient's medical practice and, under the Plaintiff's theory, if a medical provider accepts the "pitch" in the fax and accepts an eBook, it benefits the PDR Network's business of distributing the PDR and an associated "suite of services." The Fourth Circuit stated the TCPA does not limit the commercial aspect of an "unsolicited advertisement" to a direct sale and it maintains a "'commercial' character" if PDR Network is paid by a drug company when a medical provider orders a free eBook after receiving a fax. It is the combination of the fax touting the "quality" of the eBook and a commission if the pitch is successful "that makes the fax in question sufficiently commercial to qualify as an 'advertisement' under the TCPA." Turning next to the Plaintiff's second theory that the fax is mere "'pretext' to future advertising," the Fourth Circuit agreed with this Court in holding that the Plaintiff cannot establish pretext by arguing that, whether it accepts the eBook or not, it will continue to receive promotional faxes as established in the fax's opt-out notice. Rather, under the pretext theory, the Plaintiff must show its acceptance of the free eBook will result in a subsequent sale pitch, thereby, creating a commercial nexus. If, as the Plaintiff asserts, it does not matter if it accepts the eBook then the commercial character under the pretext theory is missing and fatal to the claim. Following the Fourth Circuit's decision to vacate and remand this case for further proceedings on the Plaintiff's commission theory, this Court entered an Order allowing six months of discovery on that limited issue. At the conclusion of discovery, PDR Network filed the pending motion for summary judgment. With briefing complete, the Court considers whether summary judgment should be granted. After nine years of litigation, Judge Chambers says this action has been whittled down to a single issue: whether the Plaintiff is able to offer more than a scintilla of evidence from which a reasonable juror could find PDR Network receives a commission from pharmaceutical companies when a healthcare provider accepts a free eBook. During discovery, PDR Network produced a copy of a Services Agreement it had with Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a company whose drug information is contained in the 2014 edition of the PDR. In the Services Agreement, Bayer agreed to pay PDR Network for a subscription to PDR Network's Drug Information Services ("DIS") from Aug. 1, 2013, until July 31, 2014, for a listing of two of its drugs. Judge Chambers finds the Services Agreement does not contain any provision in which Bayer agrees to pay PDR Network any additional funds based on how many eBooks are distributed. In fact, the Services Agreement does not mention the eBook at all. During discovery, the Plaintiff deposed Barbara A. Senich, who served as Senior Vice President of Marketing and Product Line Management for PDR Network from late 2013 to early 2014. In her deposition, Ms. Senich explained that PDR Network sold products and services to pharmaceutical companies and that the eBook was a brand new method PDR Network used to get Product Information to healthcare providers. When specifically questioned about the Bayer Services Agreement, PDR Network objected to this testimony as the Services Agreement was outside the scope of Ms. Senich's designation under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff asserts Ms. Senich's statements show that the fax benefitted PDR Network directly because the distribution of the eBook was part of PDR Network's business model. However, following her deposition, Ms. Senich submitted a Declaration in which she expounded upon her deposition testimony. Ms. Senich stated that the PDR Network generally "made money by providing the DIS (among many other services) to pharmaceutical companies." According to Ms. Senich, the "PDR Network did not make money based on the number of eBooks distributed" or the number of faxes sent. "Instead, PDR Network was paid at the time of contract for the listing of the FDA-approved drug label information in DIS including the PDR." She further stated that PDR Network did not even track the number of eBooks downloaded during the relevant period in the First Amended Class Action Complaint. Given this evidence, PDR Network argues it is entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence that the fax's pitch--the availability of the eBook--resulted in a commission when the pitch was successful and a healthcare provider downloaded the eBook. As the pharmaceutical companies paid upfront at the time of the contract for a DIS subscription, PDR Network insists it received no monetary benefit from downloaded eBooks. Thus, PDR Network argues there is no "commercial nexus" as required under the TCPA. To the contrary, the Plaintiff argues a fact finder easily could find a commercial nexus exists when a recipient accepts a fax's pitch and downloads an eBook to PDR Network's business model. Judge Chambers notes that the Plaintiff has not pointed to any language in the Services Agreement or the Appendix showing Bayer was even aware that PDR Network intended to release its first edition of the eBook. Moreover, Ms. Senich definitively stated in her Declaration that if she "had been asked about 'commissions' or monies earned either directly or indirectly from the number of eBooks distributed at [her] deposition, [she] would have testified, and do so here testify, that PDR Network did not make money based on the number of eBooks distributed." Despite discovery, Judge Chambers points out the Plaintiff has uncovered no evidence that PDR Network has any kind of payment arrangement with a pharmaceutical company based upon on how many copies of the 2014 PDR eBook were distributed. Instead, the Bayer Services Agreement only shows the cost for listing Bayer's two drugs with a subscription to the 2014 DIS suite of products, which does not include the eBook among the subscription "Services" provided under the contract. Judge Chambers also finds there is nothing in the Services Agreement that contemplates Bayer paying additional sums based on the distribution of an eBook, and the amount due was calculated before any eBooks were even distributed. Likewise, while the Plaintiff argues the Court should infer that Bayer would have paid less if its listings were not distributed in the eBook, such an inference would be purely speculative as Plaintiff has presented not a scintilla of evidence to support it. Shortly after the motion for summary judgment became ripe in this case, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision in Family Health Physical Medicine, LLC v. Pulse8, LLC, 105 F.4th 567 (4th Cir. 2024), which repeatedly references PDR VI. In supplemental briefing ordered by this Court, the Plaintiff argues Pulse8 makes it clear that it need not show PDR Network received a direct profit when a fax recipient accepts a free eBook. Rather, it can prove a commercial nexus exists because PDR Network gets paid to distribute Product Information and the eBook was one of its distribution methods. However, Judge Chambers opines, this assertion is substantially different than the commission allegation the Plaintiff actually makes in paragraph 20 of its First Amended Class Action Complaint, where it alleges PDR Network is paid by pharmaceutical companies based on how many copies of the 2014 PDR e-Book the Defendants distribute. In addition, the Court agrees with PDR Network that the language the Plaintiff relies upon in Pulse8 is premised on a pretext theory, which the Fourth Circuit rejected as a theory in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to produce sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable juror could find that the fax sent by PDR Network had the necessary commercial character to make it an "unsolicited advertisement" under the TCPA. The Court, therefore, grants PDR Network's Motion for Summary Judgment. As the only Defendants now remaining in this matter are John Does 1-10 and the Plaintiff has not identified any John Does throughout the long course of this litigation, the Court finds the time to identify them has passed and also dismisses them from this action. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5uhwtt6 from PacerMonitor.com. PEACOCK TV: Class Settlement in Winston Suit Has Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Final Approval Order and Judgment approving a class action settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled HOLLY WINSTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEACOCK TV LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-08191-ALC (S.D.N.Y.). On Aug. 1, 2024, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement agreement between the parties (the "Settlement Agreement" or "Settlement"). The Court also provisionally certified a Settlement Class for settlement purposes, approved the procedure for giving notice and forms of Notice, and set a final approval hearing to take place on Nov. 21, 2024. 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. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(e) and other laws and rules applicable to final settlement approval of class actions have been satisfied, and the Court approves the settlement of this Action as memorialized in the Settlement Agreement as being fair, just reasonable and adequate to the Settlement Class and its members. Pursuant to Rule 23, the 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, will no longer thereafter be Settlement Class Members and will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement and will 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. The Court has considered and finds Class Counsel and the Class Representative have adequately represented the Class. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was reached in the absence of collusion, is the product of informed, good-faith, arms-length negotiations between the parties and their capable and experienced counsel. The Court finds that the Settlement is effective in appropriately distributing relief to the Settlement Class in light of the claims and defenses asserted, that the method of processing Settlement Class Member claims is reasonable and appropriate, and that the Settlement Agreement treats all Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. The Parties are directed to consummate the Settlement Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions. As set forth at Paragraph 2.2 of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to provide automatic renewal terms on its checkout pages in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of California's Automatic Renewal Law ("ARL"). The Defendant further agrees to disclose to subscribers with a California billing address, in a manner that substantially complies with the ARL, how to cancel in an acknowledgment email that is capable of being retained by consumers. Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc., is finally appointed to continue to serve as the Claims Administrator as provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator is directed to process all Authorized Claims in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. The Claims Administrator will administer the Escrow Account, which is a Qualified Settlement Fund within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section 1.468B-1. There will be no recourse to any Defendant, Releasee, Released Party or their counsel, or to the Class Representative or Class Counsel, or to the Claims Administrator or to this Court, for any determination made by the Claims Administrator pursuant to its responsibilities under the Settlement Agreement. 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 in the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff Holly Winston. The Action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs as against the Defendant and the Released Parties. Class Representative and all Settlement Class Members (except any such person who has filed a proper and timely request for exclusion) and all persons acting on behalf of or in concert with any of them, are permanently barred and enjoined from instituting, commencing or prosecuting, either directly or in any other capacity, any and all of the Released Claims against any of the Released Parties. A full-text copy of the Court's Final Approval Order and Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/3t2ktka6 from PacerMonitor.com. PHH MORTGAGE: Knapp FDCPA Suit Removed to D. Oregon --------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Cindy Knapp, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHH Mortgage Corporation assumed business name PHH Mortgage Services, Case No. 24CV51025 was removed from the Mulnomah County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01990-AR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Consumer Credit. PHH Mortgage -- https://www.phhmortgage.com/ -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation, is one of the largest subservicers of residential mortgages in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin A. Schwartzman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 940 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 342-4411 Fax: (208) 342-4455 Email: bschwartzman@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas N. Abbott, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 SW Main Street, Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 290-2322 Email: Thomas.Abbott@troutman.com PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Carter-Shabazz Civil Rights Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as MUMIT XH CARTER-SHABAZZ, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL, et al., Defendants, Case No. C23-6045-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1staw8 PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays Fullington Prison Civil Rights Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as SHAWN MATHEW FULLINGTON, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C24-5190-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vY4tXl PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Court Stays McKenzie Prison Civil Rights Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge S. Kate Vaughan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington stayed the case captioned as TANAR McKENZIE, Plaintiff, v. PIERCE COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. C24-5509-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.). This is a civil rights action proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The instant action is one of a number of cases filed by present and former Pierce County Jail inmates asserting claims concerning the plumbing and sewage system at the Jail. The Court has appointed counsel in one such case, Wolfclan v. Washington State DSHS, C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, which was filed as a proposed class action. Plaintiffs in the Wolfclan case are seeking class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff in this case is a potential member of the proposed class in Wolfclan, though a decision on whether the proposed class will ultimately be certified is not likely to occur before the spring of 2025 at the earliest. Judge Vaughan says regardless of whether this action ends up proceeding in whole or in part independently of Wolfclan, decisions made in that case are likely to have some impact on the manner in which this case proceeds. Moreover, the discovery currently being collected in the Wolfclan case is likely to be relevant to issues raised in this action, particularly that which goes to issues of liability. It is more efficient at this juncture for discovery to proceed in a single case, rather than in each of the individual actions that are currently pending, including the instant action. The parties are advised that any depositions taken and any written discovery and documents exchanged in Wolfclan, which pertain to class-wide liability issues, may be used in this action and will be deemed taken or exchanged for purposes of this action, subject to entry of an appropriate protective order consistent with the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Wolfclan, Case No. C23-5399-TSZ-SKV, Dkt. 138. Should Plaintiff's deposition be taken as a part of the Wolfclan litigation, that deposition may be used for all purposes in the instant action. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9XuMnM PILLOW CUBE: Hogan Seeks More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HOGAN and ELLIOTT HOGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PILLOW CUBE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00403-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file their renewed motion for class certification by an additional 60 days, from Dec. 16, 2024, until Feb. 14, 2025. The Plaintiffs have been diligently conducting discovery but require additional time to receive discovery documents back from the Defendant Pillow Cube, Inc., and from non-parties with relevant information. Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative class have been in email and phone communications with the Defendant and their production in this case should be received by Dec. 6, 2022. Discovery and information from non-parties should be received sometime thereafter. The Plaintiffs request the extension to allow sufficient time for the return and examination of discovery. Pillow Cube specializes in side sleeper pillows, ice cube cooling pillows, side sleeper mattresses and pillows cube-shaped and made of rebound foam. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3uHowm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan E. DeLadurantey, Esq. DELADURANTEY LAW OFFICE, LLC 136 E. Saint Paul Ave. Waukesha, WI 53188 Telephone: (414) 377-0515 E-mail: nathan@dela-law.com PILLOW CUBE: Plaintiffs Must Renew Class Cert Bid by Feb. 14, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hogan, et al., v. Pillow Cube Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00403 (E.D. Wisc., Filed April 3, 2024), Hon. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of time to renew their motion for class certification: -- The deadline for Plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification is extended to February 14, 2025. -- No further extension of this deadline will be considered or granted. The nature of suit states Consumer Credit. The Defendant specializes in side sleeper pillows, ice cube cooling pillows, side sleeper mattresses and pillows cube-shaped and made of rebound foam.[CC] POST MEDS: Class Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Post Meds, Inc. Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 4:23-cv-05710-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The parties are directed to meet and confer and stipulate to a schedule of dates for each event listed below, which shall be submitted to the Court within seven days of the date of this Order: Event Deadline for Settlement Administrator to send email notice Deadline for Settlement Administrator to send mail notice to all non-email accessible Class Members Filing deadline for attorneys' fees and costs motion and requests for service awards Deadline for Class Members to opt-out or object to settlement Deadline for Class Members to object to any motions for attorneys' fees Filing deadline for final approval motion Final fairness hearing and hearing on motions Class Definition: The class is defined as "all U.S. residents who were sent notice that their Private Information was potentially compromised as a result of the Data Incident experienced by PostMeds, Inc., on Oct. 30, 2023." The proposed class comprises approximately two million individuals. PostMeds provides online pharmacy delivery services. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q1m7yL at no extra charge.[CC] PROTECTIVE LIFE: Court Stays Allen Class Suit --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEVERLY R. ALLEN, et al., v. PROTECTIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00026-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to stay pending resolution by the Ninth Circuit of important and potentially dispositive issues germane to this case: 1. Defendants' motion to stay is granted; 2. This action is stayed pending issuance of an opinion by the Ninth Circuit in the Moriarty action. If no determinative decision is rendered in Moriarty within one year of the date of this Order, the Plaintiffs may seek relief through a motion to lift stay; and 3. No later than 14 days following the issuance of such opinion(s), the parties shall file a joint status report in which they set forth their positions on whether the stay in this case should be lifted. The Plaintiffs initiated this action on Sept. 26, 2022, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Francisco, asserting six claims for relief against Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek to collect insurance benefits allegedly owed under a $200,000 life insurance policy. The Defendants removed the action to the Northern District of California on Oct. 27, 2022. Protective offers life insurance, annuity and asset protection solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FXMTvL at no extra charge.[CC] PUNDIR GROUP INC: Gamino Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against PUNDIR GROUP, INC., et al. The case is styled as Guadalupe R. Gamino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PUNDIR GROUP, INC., Does 1-10, Case No. 24CV023955 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., Nov. 22, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Pundir Group, Inc. (PGI) offers Operations & Maintenance, Construction, and Energy Efficiency services to federal and private sector clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Lyun Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com PURPOSE FUNDING: Moyer Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purpose Funding, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Moyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Purpose Funding, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-00480-WS-MAF (N.D. Fla., Nov. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Purpose Funding -- https://www.purposefunding.com/ -- specializes in home refinance, reverse mortgage, VA home loans, FHA Loans and other home mortgage options.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Modified CMO Entered in Beckles Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Beckles v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-06412 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Sept. 12, 2024), Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered a modified case management order on Rule 23 class certification for: -- The opening motion to be due 90 days after a decision on Defendants' motion to dismiss; -- The opposition to be due 45 days after the opening motion; and -- The reply to be due 21 days after the opposition. Finally, the modified case management plan shall provide for fact discovery to be completed 90 days after the Court's decision on class certification, and expert discovery to be completed 90 days after the close of fact discovery. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Reckitt manufactures cleaning products.[CC] RENTOKIL INITIAL: Artificially Inflated Stock Price, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- LABORERS LOCAL #235 PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENTOKIL INITIAL PLC, ANDREW M. RANSOM, STUART M. INGALL-TOMBS, and BRADLEY S. PAULSEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02932-MSN-tmp (W.D. Tenn., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Rentokil's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Rentokil American Depositary Shares (ADSs) at artificially inflated prices between December 1, 2023, and September 10, 2024. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Rentokil experienced levels of disruption in the early pilots of the Terminix integration; (2) Rentokil experienced significant, ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges integrating Terminix; (3) the disruption and execution challenges imperiled Rentokil's integration plan for Terminix; (4) Rentokil and Terminix were still two separate businesses that were not yet integrated; (5) Rentokil's failure to integrate Terminix negatively impacted the company's business and operations, particularly organic revenue growth in North America; and (6) as a result of the above, the Defendants' positive statements about the company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the truth emerged, the price of Rentokil ADSs fell $6.65 per ADS, or more than 21 percent, from a closing price of $31.60 per ADS on September 10, 2024, to a closing price of $24.95 per ADS on September 11, 2024. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent statements and omissions, the Plaintiff and similarly situated investors who had purchased Rentokil common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period have sustained economic losses, the suit says. Laborers Local #235 Pension Fund is a pension fund based in Elmsford, New York. Rentokil Initial PLC is a provider of pest control, hygiene, and wellness services, headquartered in Crawley, England. [BN] 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 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA: Wright Sues Over Civil Rights Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as TERMINIX, TERMINIX COMMERCIAL, WESTERN EXTERMINATOR COMPANY, RENTOKIL STERITECH, RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, PRATT PEST MANAGEMENT, AMBIUS, and TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS; THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a foreign limited partnership doing business as TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL CO L P, BENSWAY PEST, and INTERMOUNTAIN PEST CONTROL; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 24-2-23501-9 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought to remedy Defendants' ongoing violation of Plaintiff and the Class members' civil rights. Effective January 1, 2023, all Washington employers with 15 or more employees are required to disclose, in each posting for each job opening, the wage scale or salary range, and a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation being offered to the hired applicant. (RCW 49.58.110.). Despite RCW 49.58.110 becoming effective January 1, 2023, Defendants continue to withhold pay information in some, if not all, of their job postings for Washington-based positions. As of the date of this filing, Defendants continue to employ discriminatory hiring practices as a result of their ongoing refusal to comply with RCW 49.58.110. the Defendants' refusal to post a wage scale or salary range in job postings is a violation of Plaintiff and the Class members' civil rights. On October 1, 2024, Plaintiff applied for a job opening in Washington with Defendants. The posting for the job opening Plaintiff applied to did not disclose the wage scale or salary range being offered. In working through the application, Plaintiff expected that at some point she would learn the rate of pay for the open position. However, Defendants withheld the rate of pay for the open position in the job posting and throughout the application process, forcing Plaintiff to complete the entire application without learning the rate of pay. As a result of Defendants' refusal to publish the wage scale or salary range within the job posting, Plaintiff was unable to determine the rate of pay for the position. As a result of Defendants' refusal to disclose the wage scale or salary range in the job posting, Plaintiff remains unable to evaluate the pay for the position and compare that pay to other available positions in the marketplace, which negatively impacts Plaintiff's current and lifetime wages. As a result of Defendants' refusal to disclose the wage scale or salary range in the job posting, Plaintiff's ability to negotiate pay remains adversely affected, says the complaint. The Plaintiff applied for a position with Defendants in the State of Washington. Rentokil North America, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation doing business as Terminix, Terminix Commercial, Western Exterminator Company, Rentokil Steritech, Rentokil North America, Pratt Pest Management, Ambius, and Target Specialty Products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 442-9106 Fax: (206) 441-9711 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Hammonds Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Hammonds, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-08321 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) customers at Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including, upon information and belief, their Social Security numbers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; nominal damages; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, which: remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and remains backed up in Defendant's possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendant fails to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a customer at Defendant. The Defendant is a financial services company that offers stock trading and investment services to its customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com RON HIBACHI: Court OK's Settlement Agreement in Chen Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN DAN CHEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, et al., v. RON HIBACHI GRILL SUPREME BUFFET INC., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02591-EAP (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth Pascal entered an order finding that the proposed Settlement Agreement is a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions. -- The Plaintiffs' counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $164,833.98 is appropriate, and $5,496.42 of Plaintiffs' counsel's requests for costs is reasonable and supported by itemized receipts. -- Accordingly, the Motion for Settlement is granted and the settlement is approved. An appropriate Order follows. The Plaintiffs' claims for wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). Hibachi is a restaurant in Atlantic County offering a wide selection of over two hundred and fifty buffet items of Chinese, Japanese, American, Italian, and Mexican cuisines. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Nov. 27, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hclHeL at no extra charge.[CC] RSCR CALIFORNIA: Chevalier Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHA CHEVALIER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RSCR CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV27261 (Filed Oct. 17, 2024) was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 20, 2024. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10061 to the proceedings. The complaint alleges the following purported causes of action against Defendant: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to pay overtime wages; (4) failure to pay all wages due upon termination; (5) failure to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failure to maintain records; (7) failure to reimburse for necessary business expenditures; (8) failure to provide sick pay and COVID-19 sick pay; and (9) unfair business practices. RSCR was founded in 2007. The Company's line of business includes providing employment services.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alex M. Barfield, Esq. TUCKER ELLIS LLP 515 Flower Street Forty-Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: (216) 430-3400 Facsimile: (216) 430-3409 E-mail: alex.barfield@tuckerellis.com SABA UNIVERSITY: Court Decertifies Class of Enrollees ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NATALIA ORTIZ, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. SABA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; AND R3 EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-12002-WGY (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge William Young entered an order that certification of the nationwide class is precluded and the class must be decertified because the laws of multiple jurisdictions apply to thus putative worldwide class of consumers, the difference in state and national laws predominate over common issues, leaving the predominance requirement of 23(b)3 unsatisfied: -- The Court decertifies the class of: "All individuals who enrolled at Saba from Sept. 2017 to the date of the certification order in this matter who: 1) are no longer enrolled at Saba and 2) did not sit for the USMLE Step 1 exam." Excluded from the class are: Students who transferred credit to another school, or failed to pass a majority of the classes that they took; Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants' officers, directors, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. -- Ortiz's motion for class notice is denied as moot. -- Saba's motion to stay proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal is likewise denied as moot. Saba University is a private for-profit offshore medical school located on Saba, a special municipality of the Netherlands in the Caribbean. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AaKab2 at no extra charge.[CC] SAFEWAY INC: Mislabels Avocado Oil Products, Smith Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN SMITH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAFEWAY, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24CV095037 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., October 8, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant arising from its alleged false and deceptive advertising and labeling of its Avocado Oil Products in violation of the California's False Advertising Law, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. During the statute of limitations period, Safeway has marketed, labeled, advertised, and sold its Avocado Oil under the label "Signature Select" to consumers, including Plaintiff, with packaging that has prominently represented that it is avocado oil. The packaging of the Class Products unequivocally states that the oil is "100% Avocado Oil." Reasonable consumers believe, based on the Avocado Oil Representation, that the Class Products are pure avocado oil. However, unbeknownst to consumers, the Class Products are adulterated with other oils, says the suit. Safeway, Inc. operates as a supermarket. The Company offers grocery, pharmacy, bread, bakery, snacks, flowers, pet, personal care, beverages, and other food products. Safeway serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Lisa T. Omoto, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com SAINT JOSEPH'S UNIVERSITY: Cantave Settlement Gets Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for settlement in the case captioned Cantave Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saint Joseph's University, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-3181 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiff's unopposed motion for attorney fees, costs, and case contribution award to settlement class representative is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff Jaulie Cantave brings this putative class action alleging that Defendant, Saint Joseph's University, breached an implied-in-fact contract and was unjustly enriched when it transitioned to a remote format during the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs seeks to recover tuition for the remote portion of the Spring 2020 semester. The parties have entered a Class Action Settlement Agreement pursuant to which Defendant will pay $1,153,880.00 in a non-reversionary cash payment to resolve this action. Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs request that attorneys' fees, litigation costs, including fees and expenses for the Settlement Administrator, and a case Contribution Award to named Plaintiff be deducted from the Settlement Amount. On June 10, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement, conditionally certifying the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), appointing the class representative, appointing class counsel, and approving the proposed notice plan. 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. The Court held a final approval hearing on October 30, 2024, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. No settlement class members objected to the Settlement and no settlement class members opted out of the Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e), the Court now gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds the Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the Settlement Agreement. According to the Court, the Settlement Agreement was the product of arms' length negotiations between the parties, and the settlement amount is reasonable, considering the novel legal issues raised by COVID-19 disruptions, particularly whether impossibility or impracticability are valid defenses, and the potential risks and likelihood of success in pursuing litigation on the merits. The Court approves the request for a $2,500 Contribution Award for named Plaintiff. The Court finds that the request for $384,588.20 in attorneys' fees, representing 33.3% of the settlement fund and a lodestar multiplier of 3.07 is unreasonable. A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=auNzCp SAINT JOSEPH'S: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Cantave Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Cantave Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saint Joseph's University, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 23-3181 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Michael M. Baylson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will award class counsel attorneys' fees worth nineteen percent (19%) of the settlement fund. Plaintiff Jaulie Cantave brings this putative class action alleging that Defendant, Saint Joseph's University, breached an implied-in-fact contract and was unjustly enriched when it transitioned to a remote format during the Covid-19 pandemic. Plaintiffs seeks to recover tuition for the remote portion of the Spring 2020 semester. The parties have entered a Class Action Settlement Agreement pursuant to which Defendant will pay $1,153,880.00 in a non-reversionary cash payment to resolve this action. Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs request that attorneys' fees, litigation costs, including fees and expenses for the Settlement Administrator, and a case Contribution Award to named Plaintiff be deducted from the Settlement Amount. On June 10, 2024, the Court entered an Order granting preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement, conditionally certifying the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), appointing the class representative, appointing class counsel, and approving the proposed notice plan. 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. The Court held a final approval hearing on October 30, 2024, giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. No settlement class members objected to the Settlement and no settlement class members opted out of the Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class. The Court approves the request for a $2,500 Contribution Award for named Plaintiff. The Court finds that the request for $384,588.20 in attorneys' fees, representing 33.3% of the settlement fund and a lodestar multiplier of 3.07 is unreasonable. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tcTngA SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Barrett, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Fred W. Slaughter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ruled on the motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as Rosalety Avila Barrett et al. v. Saint-Gobain Glass Corporation et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-01844-FWS-DFM (C.D. Calif.): (1) Plaintiff Rosaley Avila Barrett and Plaintiff Joshua Barrett's Motion for Order Remanding Action to State Court; and (2) Defendant Saint-Gobain Glass Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Case. On July 19, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint in Orange County Superior Court, asserting individual and putative class claims for violations of the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq. Plaintiffs assert eight wage-and-hour claims, generally alleging that Defendant failed to pay minimum, straight time, and overtime wages, provide meal and rest periods, pay timely wages at termination, provide accurate itemized wage statements, and indemnify employees for business expenditures. On August 22, 2024, Defendant removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453. Defendant alleged the court has jurisdiction over this suit under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332(d) & 1453, because the number of potential class members exceeds 100, the parties meet minimum diversity requirements, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. On September 11, 2024, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims. On September 20, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Remand, arguing Defendant failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Generally, Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's amount-in-controversy calculations as unreasonable, speculative, and inconsistent with the Complaint's allegations. Defendant urges the District Court to construe Plaintiffs' arguments as a facial attack, in part because Plaintiffs did not submit any evidence rebutting Defendant's assumptions or alternative calculations. The District Court finds Defendant's assumptions regarding the various violation rates at issue are reasonable. Even before adding in attorney's fees, Defendant's estimates stemming from the violation rates the court found reasonable total $5,499,259.76. When viewed in conjunction with attorney's fees, the District Court concludes Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant seeks to dismiss all of Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim and strike all references to California Labor Code Sec. 204 and requests for injunctive or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs first and second claims allege that Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum, straight, and overtime wages for all hours worked. Defendant argues that the Complaint lacks sufficient facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs were not paid all wages for off-the clock work and fails to meet the pleading standard set out in Landers v. Quality Communications, Inc., 771 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2014). The District Court finds the Complaint fails to allege claims for unpaid minimum, straight, and overtime wages. Accordingly, the District Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' first and second claim. Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs' claims for failure to provide meal and rest periods fail because the Complaint alleges only conclusory statements unsupported by facts regarding, for example, "when or how often Plaintiffs or other putative class members were allegedly forced to forego compliant meal or rest breaks," "how any particular rest breaks failed to comply with California law," and "when or how Plaintiffs or other putative class members were denied premium pay." The District Court finds Plaintiffs' meal period and rest break claims fail to state a plausible claim for relief. The Complaint generally alleges that Defendant "regularly failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class with both meal periods" and "failed to authorize Plaintiffs and the Class to take rest breaks, regardless of whether employees worked more than four hours in a workday" by "requiring, pressuring, or encouraging them to perform work tasks which could not be completed without working in lieu of taking mandatory meal and rest periods, or by denying Plaintiffs and the Class permission to take a meal or a rest period." Plaintiffs recite the statutory standard but fail to allege facts in support of these conclusory statements, including, for example, "a specific corporate policy prohibiting those breaks or a specific instance or instances in which they were denied a required break. Thus, the District Court grants the Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs' third and fourth claims for failure to provide meal and rest periods. Plaintiffs' fifth claim alleges that Defendant failed to pay timely wages, including payment for all expenditures, minimum wages, straight-time wages, overtime wages, and meal and rest period premiums, upon separation of employment in violation of California Labor Code Secs. 201, 202, and 203. The District Court finds the Complaint fails to plausibly allege a claim for waiting time penalties. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Plaintiffs' fifth claim. Plaintiffs' sixth claim alleges that Defendant failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226(a). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs pleaded a derivative wage statement claim and thus Plaintiffs' sixth claim fails for the same reasons as Plaintiffs' wage, meal period, and rest break claims. The District Court agrees that Plaintiffs bring a derivative wage claim in that the Complaint alleges that Defendant provided inaccurate wage statements as part and parcel of Defendant's underlying failure to compensate Plaintiffs for their hours worked, overtime wages, and meal and rest period premium wages. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under the UCL and declaratory relief under the UCL and the California Labor Code. The District Court finds Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief. It also finds Plaintiffs' argument that they may represent putative class members seeking injunctive relief unpersuasive. Accordingly, the District Court dismisses Plaintiffs' request for injunctive and declaratory relief. In this case, Plaintiffs' allegations related to section 204 are predicated wholly on Plaintiffs' claims for unpaid wages. Therefore, the District Court concludes the Complaint fails to allege a plausible violation of section 204 and grants the Motion Dismiss as to any claim brought under California Labor Code Sec. 204. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is denied and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted. The District Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiffs are ordered to file an amended complaint, if any, that is limited to addressing the deficiencies identified above within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint on or before the deadline set by the District Court will result in the dismissal of this action without further notice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEJ9nc SAZERAC COMPANY: Rodriguez Sues Over Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. d/b/a STIRRINGS, Case No. 2:24-cv-08206-ST (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought as a consumer protection action seeking redress for, and a stop to, Defendant's unfair and deceptive practice of advertising and marketing of its line of cocktail mixers (the "Products" or "Product") that are sold under the "Stirrings" brand name with representations that the Products contain "No Preservatives," in violation of the New York General Business Law. The Defendant's "No Preservatives" representations are false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain the synthetic preservative, citric acid. This labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving healthier, preservative—free cocktail mixers even though these Products cannot live up to these claims. Consumers rely on Defendant's labeling advertising of the Product as containing "No Preservatives" to the truthful and would not know that the products actually contain preservatives. Reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff do not have specialized knowledge necessary to identify ingredients in the Products as Iring inconsistent with Defendant's advertised claims of the containing "No Preventatives." The Plaintiff relied on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products contain "No Preservatives" when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid premium for the Products Over comparable products that did not purport to contain "No Preservatives." Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant's misrepresentations that they contain "No Preservatives," Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid., says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Products on numerous occasions at a Kings Food Market located in Garden City, New York. The Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Gabrielli GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP 2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 201 Bronx; NY 10469 Phone: (718) 708-5322 Facsimile: (7 IS) 708-5966 Email: michael@gabriellilaw.ecm SCP DISTRIBUTORS: Phillips Sues Over Employment Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against SCP Distributors, LLC. The case is captioned as Danny Phillips, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCP Distributors, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24CV020406 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., October 8, 2024). The suit arises from the Defendant's alleged employment law violation. The case is assigned to Hon. Christopher E. Krueger. A case management conference is scheduled on November 7, 2025. SCP Distributors, LLC is a wholesale distributor of swimming pool supplies, equipment and related leisure products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Falakassa, Esq. FALAKASSA LAW, P.C. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Telephone: (818) 456-6168 SECURE PARKING: Williams Sues Over Unlawful Use of Information -------------------------------------------------------------- Shanika Williams, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SECURE PARKING USA, LLC, Case 2:24-cv-01532-BHL (E.D. Wis., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought against Defendant for unlawfully obtaining and using personal information of drivers from their Driver Motor Vehicle records ("DMV records") in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (the "DPPA"). When Defendant captures a vehicle on the cameras that, according to them, has not properly paid for parking, Defendant accesses the motor vehicle records associated with that license plate to obtain the personal information, including the name and address, of the individual to whom the vehicle is registered to. The Defendant then sends a Parking Violation Notice ("Notice") in the mail to the registered owner's home address informing them that they are required to pay Defendant for the parking. The Defendant mails these Notices to both drivers who never paid for parking, and to drivers who did in fact pay for parking, yet Defendant alleges they still owe payment. Regardless, both drivers who pay and drivers who do not pay never supply Defendant with their mailing address. At most, paying drivers supply Defendant only with their license plate number and their payment information. Therefore, the only way Defendant is able to claim "a vehicle registered in your name" parked at one of Defendant's facilities is by accessing the driver's motor vehicle records. Thus, in blatant disregard of Plaintiff and Class members' privacy rights, and the DPPA, Defendant is illegally obtaining drivers' personal information through their DMV records. Specifically, Defendant is obtaining their mailing address listed on their DMV record associated with the registered license plate/vehicle. The Defendant's parking facilities do not inform drivers that their personal information will be collected through the use of license plate photography and unlawfully obtained through DMV records. The Defendant unlawfully obtains and uses drivers' DMV record information to mail parking citations to both vehicle owners who did not pay for parking, and to vehicle owners that Defendant accuses of still owing money. The Plaintiff and Class members were never informed that their personal information would be obtained by Defendant through their DMV records or otherwise. Defendant obtains drivers' personal information, including their name and address, from their DMV records without the lawful consent of drivers, and without a lawfully permitted reason under the DPPA. In doing so, Defendant uses predatory tactics to obtain unlawful payments from drivers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff parked at Defendant's parking facility, Secure Parking USA, LLC provides parking management services to businesses worldwide and is currently utilized in nine states, including Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: bscott@bursor.com SERVICE MANAGEMENT: Larios Sues to Recover Full Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Salvador Flores Larios, on behalf of himself s and all other similarly situated v. SERVICE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:24-at-01481 (E.D. Cal., Nov. 22, 2024), is brought against the Defendant seeking to recover full compensation including unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, noncompliant meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties, and premium pay, as a result of the Defendant's violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"); the applicable California Labor Code provisions; the applicable Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order; the Unfair Business Practices Act; and California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"). This action stems from the Defendant's policies and practices of: failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Collective and Class Members minimum wage for all hours worked; failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Collective and Class Members overtime wages; failing to provide or make available to Plaintiff and putative Class Members the meal periods to which they are entitled by law, and failing to pay premium compensation payment for non-compliant meal breaks; failing to authorize and permit rest periods, and failing to pay premium compensation payment for non-compliant rest periods; failing to reimburse Plaintiff and putative Class Members for business expenditures; failing to provide Plaintiff and putative Class Members with accurate, itemized wage statements; failing to timely pay all wages upon separation from employment to Plaintiff and putative Class Members; and engaging in unfair business practices, says the complaint. 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 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com SET FORTH INC: Bellefeuille Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SET FORTH, INC. The case is styled as Joel Bellefeuille, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SET FORTH, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-12188 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 26, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. SET FORTH, INC. has been serving consumers who are exiting debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com SET FORTH: McCluskey Sues Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- BOBBIE MCCLUSKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SET FORTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-12203 (N.D. Ill., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered in May 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Set Forth, Inc., is a debt relief services provider based in Schaumburg, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com SET FORTH: Ossler Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN OSSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SET FORTH, INC. and CENTREX SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12244 (N.D. Ill., November 26, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers stored within their network systems following a data breach discovered as early as May 21, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Set Forth, Inc., is a debt relief services provider based in Schaumburg, Illinois. Centrex Software, Inc., is a software company based in Costa Mesa, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com - and - Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com shahin.rezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com - and - Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com SEYBOTH TEAM: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Iudiciani v. The Seyboth Team Real Estate Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00443 (D.R.I., Filed Oct. 26, 2023), Hon. Judge Mary S. Mcelroy entered an order granting the plaintiffs motion for an extension of time to file a motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Consolidates Bousso & Tagawa Securities Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order consolidating these two lawsuits: MICHAL BOUSSO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRE GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01458-MSN-WEF (E.D. Va.); and KOHEI TAGAWA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. SPIRE GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01810-MSN-LRV (E.D. Va.). The matter comes before the Court on several competing motions to consolidate and appoint lead counsel in these securities class actions. For reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court consolidates the cases, appoints Plaintiff Michal Bousso lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and approves his selection of counsel. The Complaints in these cases allege that the Defendant, Spire Global, Inc., violated federal securities laws and defrauded its investors. On Aug. 15, 2024, Spire--a publicly traded company--made an announcement that it would not timely file its second quarter 2024 financial report because it was reviewing accounting practices with respect to one of its business segments, and may have been overstating that segment's recognized revenue. Its shares fell $3.41 (33.56%) on this news. Then, on Aug. 27, 2024, Spire announced that in light of its accounting practices, it would need to restate previously-issued financial statements going back to the first quarter of 2022, the financial statement for which was originally released on May 11, 2022. Spire's shares fell $0.12 (about 2%) on this news. The Plaintiffs allege that they were defrauded in violation of the securities laws because Spire filed financial statements that did not conform to generally accepted accounting principles, and filed false statements certifying that Spire's financial statements were correct and that it had sufficient internal controls, among other things. They allege that they suffered damages from their purchases and sales of Spire's securities as a result of these false and misleading statements or omissions. Plaintiff Michael Bousso filed a class action complaint on Aug. 20, 2024, after the first of Spire's disclosures. Bousso's Complaint alleged a class period beginning on March 6, 2024, when Spire reported its financial results for 2023, and ending on Aug. 14, 2024, the date it announced it could not release further financial results. Also on Aug. 20, 2024, in compliance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), Bousso's counsel published notice of his lawsuit in the Business Wire. The notice reported Bousso's proposed class period, as well as the subject matter of the class action: Spire's review of its accounting practices and internal control measures regarding revenue recognition in its "Space Services" business segment. On Oct. 14, 2024, Plaintiff Kohei Tagawa filed a similar class action complaint, which included allegations regarding the Aug. 27, 2024 notice from Spire and a class period of May 11, 2022, to Aug. 27, 2024. On Oct. 21, 2024, both Boussou and Tagawa filed motions to consolidate the two actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. Another class plaintiff, who had not filed a complaint, Wojchiech Sokolowski, also filed a motion to consolidate the cases and appoint himself lead counsel. All three movants have asked the Court to consolidate the two actions. Judge Nachmanoff opines that where consolidation in a securities class action context is "uncontested" and all complaints claim securities fraud arising out of the same alleged misrepresentations, consolidation under Rule 42 is appropriate. The Court, therefore, consolidates the two actions. The competing Plaintiffs disagree as to whether the Court should assess financial loss based on the longer class period from May 11, 2022, to Aug. 27, 2024 or the shorter period covering March 6, 2024, to August 14, 2024. Tagawa and Bousso have each adopted the longer class period in their filings, while Sokolowski argues that the Court should look at losses only over the shorter period. Judge Nachmanoff holds that the longer class period is the appropriate period for calculating losses. As Tagawa and Bousso point out, the "prevailing view" is that when calculating the financial interest of potential plaintiffs, it is proper to look to the longest alleged class period among the cases to be consolidated. Only two of the moving Plaintiffs (Bousso and Tagawa) have provided the Court with a calculation of their financial interest over the course of the longer class period. Tagawa reports a net loss of $51,856, while Bousso reports a net loss of $23,131. The Court finds that Tagawa is the moving plaintiff with the largest financial loss over the appropriate class period. In his initial filings, Tagawa stated his loss amount over the longer class period as $149,470.09. As Sokolowski points out in his response, however, that calculation does not make sense given a 1:8 reverse stock split of Spire's shares on Aug. 31, 2023. In his reply memorandum, Tagawa claims his counsel made an inadvertent error as a result of failing to account properly for the 1:8 reverse stock split, thus multiplying the relevant share prices for some transactions by eight, in his preliminary loss chart. Tagawa's actual loss, he claims, was $51,856. The Court accepts Tagawa's contention that the incorrect loss calculation was an innocent error rather than a deliberate effort to mislead the Court. Nevertheless, Judge Nachmanoff says that error raises serious concerns about Tagawa and his counsel's ability to adequately litigate this case. The error is one that Tagawa or his counsel should have caught, as it related to a stock split they were aware of and resulted in an overstatement of Tagawa's loss by a factor of three. To put it bluntly, Judge Nachmanoff says the Court is not buying Tagawa's effort to brush his serious errors under the rug, and cannot find that he would adequately represent the class of plaintiff shareholders. For this reason, Judge Nachmanoff holds that Tagawa does not meet the statutory requirements of a presumptive lead plaintiff under the PSLRA and cannot represent the class. Having found that Tagawa does not meet the requirements of a presumptive class plaintiff under 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(B)(iii)(I), the Court must look elsewhere. Adopting the longer class means that Sokolowski is not an option. For one, he has not provided any calculation of his loss amount across the longer class period, so it is impossible to determine that he has the largest financial interest in this litigation. That leaves Bousso. As the only eligible remaining movant, Judge Nachmanoff finds he indisputably has the largest financial interest in this litigation. Bousso has also demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction (and without any contestation from the other movants) that he satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Bousso's claims, as outlined in his Complaint, are "typical" of the class as he alleges that he purchased Spire securities in reliance on the fraud that both he and Tagawa allege. His submissions show that he purchased 10,001 shares of Spire securities before the alleged fraud was revealed, and sold all but one of those shares in batches between August 23 and August 29, thus, selling shares after each of the alleged reports that alerted the Plaintiffs to the fraud. Judge Nachmanoff also finds, among other things, that Bousso is adequate and does not appear to have any interests adverse to the class. His selected counsel, who have litigated numerous securities class actions, are sufficiently competent to manage this litigation. The Court, therefore, finds that Bousso meets the statutory requirements for a presumptive lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. The Court will approve the Plaintiff's selection of counsel based solely on that counsel's competence, experience, and resources. The Court is satisfied based on Bousso's motion and exhibits that his counsel and liaison counsel are sufficiently competent and experienced and that both have the resources to serve effectively as co-lead counsel. For these reasons, the Court consolidates the actions, appoints Plaintiff Michael Bousso as lead plaintiff, and appoints Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel with Butler Curwood PLC as local counsel. The Court grants Plaintiff Michal Bousso's Motion. The Court denies Plaintiff Kohei Tagawa's Motion and Plaintiff Wojciech Sokolowski's Motion, except to the extent that their requests to consolidate this action are granted. The cases are consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and this case is renamed In re Spire Global, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 1:24-cv-01458-MNS-WEF. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2cp3nhfz from PacerMonitor.com. STANCE INC: Agostini Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Lunique Agostini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stance, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09061 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Stadium Enterprises provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.stance.com (hereinafter "Stance.com" or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Stance.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Stance's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Stance provides to the public a website known as Stance.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of socks and apparel, including T-shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, jackets, pants, shorts, boxers, caps.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: +1 347-941-4715 Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com STARBUCKS CORP: Union Funds' Lead Plaintiff Motion Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled on the motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as CHARLES GARBACCIO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01362-JHC (W.D. Wash.). Having considered Pavers & Road Builders District Council Pension Fund, Teamsters Local 237 Additional Security Benefit Fund, and Teamsters Local 237 Supplemental Fund for Housing Authority Employees' (collectively, the Union Funds) Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel, and good cause appearing, the Court orders as follows: 1. The Union Funds' Motion, which is unopposed, is granted. Plaintiff Foley's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Counsel is denied. 2. The Union Funds are appointed as Lead Plaintiff for the class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(iii). 3. The Union Funds' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as Lead Counsel and Keller Rohrback L.L.P. as Liaison Counsel for the class is approved, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(v). A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LX99ny STERLING FARM: Enderson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Robyn Enderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. STERLING FARM & FLEET, INC., BLAIN SUPPLY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01520 (E.D. Wis., Nov. 25, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. The Defendant operated an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to properly compensate Plaintiff and all other current and former hourly-paid employees for all overtime hours worked each workweek by failing to include all forms of nondiscretionary compensation, such as sales incentives and shift differentials, in said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation and compensation purposes, in violation of the FLSA and IMWL. The Defendant's failure to compensate its hourly paid employees for all overtime compensation owed was intentional, willful, and violated federal law as set forth in the FLSA and state law as set forth in the IMWL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee during the entirety of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants. Sterling Farm & Fleet, Inc is an Illinois corporation with a principal office address located in Sterling, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, WI 53005 Phone: (262) 780-1953 Fax: (262) 565-6469 Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Gibbs Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joshua Gibbs, as an individual and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 37-2024-00015349-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Nov. 25, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02209-LL-DEB. The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in compensating drivers as follows: failing to pay proper sick wages; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; violation of California's Unfair Competition Act ("UCL").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. Andrea L. Fellion, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com afellion@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com TARGET CORP: Payton Sues Over iPhones Deceptive Marketing --------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that an iPhone customer, plaintiff Jonathan Payton, is suing Target. Why: The plaintiff claims the company falsely marketed Target iPhones as "unlocked" -- meaning they can be used with any carrier. Where: The Target iPhones lawsuit was filed in a New York federal court. Target falsely advertises certain iPhones as "unlocked" when they are, in fact, locked and restricted to specific carriers, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff Jonathan Payton filed the lawsuit against Target Corporation on Nov. 21 in a New York federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The Target iPhones lawsuit alleges that Target's deceptive marketing practices led thousands of consumers to pay a premium for phones they believed could be used with any carrier. Lawsuit accuses Target of bait-and-switch scheme Payton claims he purchased an iPhone 11 advertised as unlocked from a Target store in New York City last November. However, when he attempted to activate the phone with AT&T, he discovered it was locked to Verizon's network, he says. This forced him to make additional payments at a Verizon-affiliated store to unlock the phone, he says. "If Plaintiff had known that the Phone advertised as being unlocked was actually locked requiring the payment of additional funds to ultimately unlock the Phone, he would not have purchased the allegedly unlocked Phone," the lawsuit says. According to the complaint, Target's advertisements for unlocked iPhones -- both online and in stores -- mislead customers into believing these devices are compatible with all carriers, offering flexibility for users switching providers or traveling internationally. The complaint alleges that locked phones require software and hardware specific to one carrier, limiting their usability. Consumers must often pay additional fees to unlock such phones, further adding to their frustration, it says. As a result, Payton is looking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased an iPhone advertised as unlocked from a Target store between November 2016 and the present day. He's suing for violations of New York's General Business Law, breach of contract and unjust enrichment and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, consumers recently filed other class action lawsuits against Target Corp. over claims involving false advertising, product misrepresentation and biometric data collection. Click here for more information. The plaintiff is represented by Ross H. Schmierer of Kazerouni Law Group A.P.C. and Todd M. Friedman and Adrian Bacon of the Law Offices Of Todd M. Friedman PC. The Target class action lawsuit is Jonathan Payton v. Target Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-08116 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] THEO CHOCOLATE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due June 20, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAMELA CHESAVAGE, et al., v. THEO CHOCOLATE, INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-02739-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered a schedulig order as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of document productions May 5, 2025 by both parties: Deadline to File Motion to Amend Pleadings: May 30, 2025 Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification, June 20, 2025 including expert reports supporting motion: Deadline to Complete Non-Expert Discovery: July 21, 2025 Deadline for Theo to file Opposition to Class Aug. 19, 2025 Certification Motion, including expert reports supporting opposition and Daubert motions pertaining solely to Class Certification issues: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Reply in Support Sept. 18, 2025 of Class Certification Motion, including rebuttal expert reports, Daubert motions and opposition to any Daubert motions filed by Theo pertaining solely to Class Certification issues: Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 6, 2025 Certification: Theo Chocolate is an American chocolate maker. A copy of the Court's order dated Nov. 20, 2024 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pULjpI at no extra charge.[CC] TRANS UNION: Saucedo Seeks to Certify Class Action -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VALERIANO SAUCEDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04891-EKL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court should certify Plaintiff’s proposed California identity theft/fraud dispute class for injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2), the Plaintiff contends. The case is a proposed class action arising from Trans Union's (TU's) ongoing violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). TU refuses to reasonably investigate complaints of identity theft by California consumers. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for California consumers who report identity thefts to TU, only to have TU parrot the computer statement of the furnisher that the disputed charge belongs to the consumer, without reasonably investigating as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In 2021, the Plaintiff Valeriano Saucedo was the victim of a data breach by Flagstar Bank, with which he had refinanced his home. He received notice of this data breach from Flagstar in or about June 2022. TransUnion is an American consumer credit reporting agency. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Nov. 26, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p3fzjZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Dan Keller, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com DKeller@TheMMLawFirm.com - and - Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. Shelby Serig MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 846-3862 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com sserig@forthepeople.com TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Silberstein Sues Over Alleged FDCA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case is captioned as Mayer Silberstein, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Transworld Systems Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-07652-CS (S.D.N.Y., October 8, 2024). The case is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act. The suit is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Seibel. Transworld Systems Inc. is a debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Aaron R. Easley, Esq. SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE, LLC 3 Cross Creek Drive Flemington, NJ 08822 Telephone: (908) 237-1660 Facsimile: (908) 237-1663 E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Supreme Court OKs Taxi Drivers' Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laurel Henning, writing for Capital Brief, reports that the Supreme Court of Victoria has rubber stamped an agreed on settlement reached between Uber and more than 8,000 taxi drivers. The context: The night before the class action lawsuit had been scheduled to go to trial in March, Uber agreed on the settlement with the taxi drivers who had alleged the company set up in Australia illegally and in doing so, caused them financial harm. The settlement was reached without admission of liability by Uber. In announcing her decision on the payout Tuesday morning, December 3, Supreme Court of Victoria Judge Patricia Matthews said she had found "the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the interest of group members". [GN] ULTA INC: Class Settlement in Chan Suit Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Andre Birotte Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of California granted final approval of the class settlement in the case captioned as NANG CHAN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. ULTA INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00650-AB-PLA (C.D. Calif.). On November 15, 2024, a hearing was held on the motion of Plaintiff Nang Chan for final approval of the class settlement with Defendant Ulta Inc., and payments to the Class, the Plaintiff, Class Counsel, and the Settlement Administrator. In the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court certified the Class for settlement purposes only. For settlement purposes only, the Court confirms the certification of the Class which is defined as: All of Defendant's non-exempt current and former employees working or who worked in the State of California in Defendant's distribution center(s) from January 27, 2019 through and including May 29, 2024, which is the date the Court granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement. The time period applicable to Class Members' release of claims under the Settlement Agreement is January 27, 2019 through the date of this Order granting Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement. For the reasons stated in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds and determines that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class and to each Class Member and that the Settlement Class Members will be bound by the Settlement, that the Settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the Settlement should be and hereby are ordered to be consummated. The Court finds and determines that the all-inclusive Gross Settlement Fund in the maximum amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) and the Individual Settlement Payments to be paid to the Settlement Class Members as provided for by the Settlement are fair and reasonable. It grants final approval to and orders the payment of those amounts be distributed to the Settlement Class Members out of the Net Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, the Settlement Administrator is directed to make the payments to each Settlement Class Member in accordance with the Agreement. The Court finds and determines that the fees and expenses of Simpluris, Inc. in administrating the settlement, in the amount of $16,000.00, are fair and reasonable. It grants final approval to and orders that the payment of that amount be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund in accordance with the Agreement. The Court approves the PAGA Payment of $15,000, which shall be allocated $11,250.00 to the LWDA as the LWDA's share of the settlement of civil penalties paid under this Agreement pursuant to the PAGA, and $3,750.00 to the Net Settlement Fund for distribution to the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds and determines that the request by Plaintiffs and Class Counsel to the Class Representative Enhancement Payments and the attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Agreement are fair and reasonable. It grants final approval to and orders that the payment of the amount of $5,000 to Plaintiff Nang Chang for his Class Representative Enhancement Payment, $100,000.00 (33.3% of the GSA) for attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, and $11,481.85 for reimbursement of costs be paid out of the Gross Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement. By means of this Order, the Court enters final judgment in this action, as defined in Rule 58(a)(1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Parties are ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement. This action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ME3ZKq UNISYS CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Unisys Corporation (NYSE: UIS) resulting from allegations that Unisys may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Unisys securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=9648 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On October 22, 2024, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had charged four companies, including Unisys, with "making materially misleading disclosures regarding cybersecurity risks and intrusions." Further, the SEC also charged Unisys with disclosure controls and procedures violations. On this news, Unisys stock fell 8.6% on October 22, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] US POSTAL SERVICE: Ewings Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Daisha Ewings, Brian Bauska, Camron Paige, Mellany Thomas, for themselves and on behalf of those similarly situated v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Case No. 1:24-cv-10732 (D.N.J., Nov. 25, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended ("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Full time "City Carrier Assistants" generally do not have set schedules but are available to work 7 days a week for shifts ranging from 4 to 12 plus hours per day, and generally work at least 40 hours in each week that they work. The Defendant automatically deducts 30 minutes of time every day worked by a City Carrier Assistant for a lunch break, regardless of whether any lunch break is/was taken, reducing the hours credited as hours worked by 30 minutes for each day worked. The improperly deducted meal periods constitute hours over 40, also known as overtime hours, in one or more workweeks of Plaintiffs' employment during the applicable statute of limitations. As a result of deducting, and not paying, these hours over 40, Defendant's practice of automatically deducting meal periods, even where meal periods were not taken, caused Plaintiffs to be deprived of owed overtime compensation, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Full Time USPS City Carrier Assistants ("CCAs"). USPS is an independent entity of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Angeli Murthy, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com amurthy@forthepeople.com USC: Favell Suit 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 (USC), Case No. 2:23-cv-00846-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 Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8irl9l 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 USHEALTH ADVISORS: Williams TCPA Suit in S.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against USHealth Advisors, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Celia Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, The Montague Agency, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00267-LGW-BWC (S.D. Ga., Nov. 26, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. USHEALTH Advisors -- https://www.ushealthgroup.com/ -- is a wholly-owned national sales and distribution subsidiary of USHEALTH Group, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 26 Grand Georgian Ct Cartersville, GA 30121 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com VAJIRA SAMARARATNE: Order to Show Cause Issued in Morales Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled KURT MORALES II, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. VAJIRA SAMARARATNE, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-mc-00010-FWS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, issued a certification of facts and order to show cause why the Defendant should not be held in contempt. Defendant Vajira Samararatne has failed to comply with the Court's July 8, 2024 order requiring further responses to the Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action. The Court certifies certain facts and orders Samararatne to appear before the assigned district judge to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt for failure to comply with a subpoena and associated order. Mr. Samararatne is warned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in contempt sanctions, including attorney's fees and his arrest by the United States Marshals Service. This subpoena enforcement action arises out of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Morales v. Sunpath Ltd., et al., No. 20-01376-JLH-SRF (D. Del.). In that action, the Plaintiffs allege that various companies conspire to sell vehicle service contracts through illegal robocalling (Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint). The Plaintiffs allege that third-party Vajira Samararatne participates in the placement of unlawful robocalls by co-owning and running call centers. On Nov. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs served a Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action on Samararatne via email to his counsel, Stephen Dargitz. On Jan. 24, 2024, Dargitz served via email Samararatne's objections to the subpoena. On Feb. 21, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed a letter to Dargitz requesting to meet and confer via telephone to discuss Samararatne's objections. Dargitz declined to schedule a telephone conference and instead served amended responses to the subpoena, asserting additional objections. On April 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed with this Court a Motion to Compel Compliance with Rule 45 Subpoena Duces Tecum Against Third Party Vajira Samararatne. On July 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion to compel; both the Plaintiffs' counsel and Dargitz were present via teleconference. On July 8, 2024, the Court entered an Order Granting Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses, overruling Samararatne's objections. On July 10, 2024, the Plaintiffs' counsel emailed a copy of the Court's order to Dargitz. Dargitz did not respond. Samararatne failed to take any action to comply with the Court's July 8, 2024 order. Accordingly, on Sept. 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Contempt Against Vajira Samararatne, set for hearing on Nov. 12, 2024, before the Magistrate Judge. In their contempt motion, the Plaintiffs request the Court certify the facts underlying Samararatne's failure to comply with the Court's Order on July 8, 2024, so that the district judge can proceed with a hearing on whether Samararatne should be held in contempt for refusing a direct and clear Order of the Court. Samararatne neither filed anything nor appeared at the Nov. 12, 2024 hearing. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(e)(6)(B)(iii), Judge McCormick certifies 12 facts to the district judge assigned to this matter, including the facts that Samararatne did not appear at the Nov. 12, 2024 hearing, or otherwise respond to the Plaintiffs' contempt motion, and that Samararatne has made no attempt to provide an explanation for his noncompliance with Court orders. Based on these facts, Judge McCormick says the Plaintiff has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Samararatne failed to comply with clear and definite court orders--both the Nov. 22, 2023 subpoena and the Court's July 8, 2024 order. Judge McCormick orders Samararatne to appear before the assigned district court to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason on these facts. Accordingly, Judge McCormick directs Vajira Samararatne to appear before the Honorable Fred W. Slaughter in Courtroom 10D, Tenth Floor, United States District Court, 411 West 4th Street, in Santa Ana, California 92701-4516, on Feb. 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt by reason of the facts certified here. The United States Marshals Service is directed to personally serve a signed copy of this Order on Vajira Samararatne as soon as practicable at 26 Blue Grass, in Irvine California 92603, or any other address where he may be located. The United States Marshals Service will promptly file a return of service upon service of this Order. Mr. Samararatne will have thirty (30) days from the date of service of this Order to fully comply with the Court's July 8, 2024 order or show by clear and convincing evidence why compliance is impossible. The Plaintiff's counsel's information is as follows: Mark L. Javitch, Javitch Law Office, 3 East 3rd Avenue, Suite 200, in San Mateo, CA 94401, Tel: (650) 781-8000, Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com. The Plaintiffs will immediately inform the Court if Samararatne complies with the Court's July 8, 2024 order. Samararatne is again warned that his failure to comply with this Order may result in contempt sanctions including attorney's fees and/or his arrest by the United States Marshals Service. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mthw5f4k from PacerMonitor.com. VGW HOLDINGS: Removes Saulny Class Suit to S.D. Miss. ----------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of MAKAYLA DARRIELLE SAULNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED; VGW MALTA LIMITED; VGW LUCKYLAND INC, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Mississippi, County of Hinds (Case No. 25CI1:24-cv-00578-AHW) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on Oct. 9, 2024. The clerk of court for the Southern District of Mississippi assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00619-HTW-LGI. The case is assigned to Judge Henry T. Wingate and referred to Magistrate LaKeysha Greer Isaac. VGW Holdings Limited, doing business as Virtual Gaming Worlds, operates an online gaming portal. The Company offers an online casino that allows players to interact with one another via social gaming and multiplayer online game designs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Carter Thompson , Jr., Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-8942 Facsimile: (601) 974-8942 Email: cthompson@bakerdonelson.com VISA INC: Faces Cai Class Action Suit Over Corrective Disclosure ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEIBEI CAI, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VISA INC, RYAN MCINERNEY, CHRIS SUH, and PETER ANDRESKI, Case No. 3:24-cv-08220 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Visa securities between November 16, 2023, and September 23, 2024. The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action alleges that Visa materially misled investors as to the risk of damaging antitrust investigations being conducted by federal regulators, choosing to downplay the risk despite its high likelihood of manifesting. On Sept. 24, 2024, these risks came to fruition, as the United States Department of Justice sued Visa in federal court for monopolizing the debit card payment processing market. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. On this news, Visa's stock price fell $1.48, or 5.38%, to close at $26.03 per share on September 24, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume, contends the suit. The Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. Visa processes and facilitates debit and credit card transactions. Both businesses and consumers utilize its services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com VISIONS TREATMENT: Chaimungkla Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Kristine Chaimungkla, and others similarly situated v. VISIONS TREATMENT CENTERS, LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV31234 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Nov. 26, 2024), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") and violation of Business And Professions Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay wages. The Defendant violated Labor Code because it failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because VISIONS had a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked. Moreover, VISIONS failed to provide its employees with proper and accurate reporting time pay. In addition, Plaintiff and others consistently worked "off the clock" in that she would consistently text and email after work hours as there was not enough time during the scheduled shifts to get work done, including the paperwork, says the complaint. The Plaintiff started working at VISIONS on October 2021 and was classified as an hourly, non-exempt employee and her latest job title is programmer. VISIONS TREATMENT CENTERS, LLC is a California limited liability company, doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harout Messrelian, Esq. MESSRELIAN LAW INC. 500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: (818) 484-6531 Facsimile: (818) 956-1983 WESTERN DIGITAL: Knowles Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09146 (S.D.N.Y., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://shop.sandisk.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text) or a text equivalent, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Western Digital Corporation is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal WESTLAKE SERVICES: Class Cert Bid Filing Reset to Jan. 16, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael Klare v. Westlake Services, LLC et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06386-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order that: 1. The Stipulation is granted as set forth in this Order. 2. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be reset for hearing on Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. Westlake offers auto finance, equity loans, and other financial products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 2, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xj7A8c at no extra charge.[CC] WORLD SPA: Layne Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WORLD SPA ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08250 (E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.worldspa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: 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 Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. World Spa Entertainment, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com YAHOO! INC: Settles Data Breach Class Suit in Canada for $20-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Takagi of Toronto Star reports that your Yahoo account might be collecting some digital dust but it could earn you some extra cash. Some Canadian Yahoo customers, including Rogers Yahoo email users, are eligible to make a claim in a $20 million data breach class action suit. The tech company used to be a dominant force in the early internet, contending with Google for search engine and email supremacy, though its name recognition and use has waned in recent years. What is the Yahoo class action about? The class action stems from a series of data breaches between 2013 and 2016, with plaintiffs alleging that Yahoo did not have adequate data security measures in place. Yahoo announced two of the data breaches, which happened in 2013 and 2014, years later in 2016. A third breach happened in 2015 and 2016 and was later announced in 2017. Yahoo confirmed that the first two data breaches exposed the information of more than 1 billion users, cost the company $350 million and was the biggest ever hack of an email provider. Yahoo, in settling the class action, has denied any wrongdoing. Who can apply for the class action? Canadian residents with a Yahoo account at any time during the period Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2016. The class action also covers Rogers customers in Canada who used the telecom's Rogers Yahoo email service during that time frame. To apply for the class action, you'll need to show that the data breaches led to time wasted responding to each breach and documentation of your Yahoo email address. How much can I get? Eligible users with a Yahoo account who apply for the class action can receive up to $375. Yahoo users who subscribed to the company's paid services (including ad-free, premium or small business services) can apply for an extra amount up to $25,000 to cover their costs, but must provide payment documentation. Those users must submit: an attestation that costs were incurred due to the data breaches, documentation of your costs, documentation of your Yahoo account and related statements if you suffered from identity theft. However, claims may be reduced if the number of claims exceeds the settlement funds. The deadline for making a claim is Dec. 27 and claim forms can be completed online on the settlement website. [GN] YOUNG CONSULTING: Martin Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- William Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, d/b/a CONNEXURE, Case No. 1:24-cv-04638-TWT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") including, inter alia, individuals' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, insurance policy information, and insurance claim information. In order to provide these services to its clients, Young Consulting is entrusted with the PII and PHI of its clients' insureds. As Defendant is or should have been aware, these types of personal and sensitive data are highly targeted by hackers who seek to exploit that data for nefarious purposes. In the wrong hands, these types of sensitive data may be wielded to cause significant harm to Plaintiff and Class Members. By collecting and storing individuals' PII and PHI, Young Consulting has a resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard the PII and PHI with which it has been entrusted against unauthorized access and disclosure through reasonable and adequate data security measures. Defendant is also well-aware that PII and PHI are highly valuable to cybercriminals, making it highly foreseeable that Young Consulting would be the target of a cyberattack. Despite Young Consulting's duty to safeguard the PII and PHI with which it is entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information stored by Young Consulting was accessed and acquired by unauthorized third parties during a data breach that occurred on or around April 10–13, 2024 (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and follow basic, standard security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI is now in the hands of cybercriminals and has been exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff directly or indirectly entrusted Young Consulting with their sensitive and confidential PII and PHI. Young Consulting is a company that provides "software solutions for the marketing, underwriting and administering of medical stop loss insurance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy E. Barnes, Esq. Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770-227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com ktullos@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: gary@lcllp.com YOUNG CONSULTING: Montero Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Chinchilla Montero, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YOUNG CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-04637-TWT (N.D. Ga., Oct. 11, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard patients' personally identifiable information ("PII" protected health information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their Private Information had been compromised. As a result of Young Consulting's negligence and insufficient data security, cybercriminals easily infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems and stole the Private Information of Plaintiff and the Class (approximately 954,177 individuals) (the "Data Breach" or "Breach"). Now, Plaintiff's and the Class's Private Information is in the hands of cybercriminals who will undoubtedly use their Private Information for nefarious purposes for the rest of their lives. On August 26, 2024, Young Consulting began notifying state attorneys general and victims that it had sustained a massive data breach. As a result of Young Consulting's failure to protect the sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered harm and have been exposed to a significant and continuing risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud for years to come, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was notified via letter from Young Consulting dated August 26, 2024, that he was a victim of the Data Breach. Young Consulting is a Georgia-based risk management company that provides services to Blue Shield of California and receives information from Blue Shield relating to these services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy E. Barnes, Esq. Kristen Tullos Oliver, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770-227-6375 Facsimile: (770) 227-6373 Email: roy@barneslawgroup.com ktullos@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Tanner J. Edwards, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com tanner@stuevesiegel.com ********* 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 ***