/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241227.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 260
Headlines
1248 HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid in Tobler Suit Due March 14, 2025
2227 SUPERMARKETS: Cifuentes Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Labor Class Suit Mediation Set for May 8, 2025
ANNA JAQUES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kinney Suit Alleges
ANTHONY WILLS: Claims in McCloud Suit Separated in Two Cases
ARACA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges
ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
ARQIT QUANTUM: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for 2025
AUTOBELL CAR: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Joe Alleges
BARRETT FINANCIAL: Seeks to Stay Conditional Class Cert. Briefing
BERNER FOOD: Muhammad Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
BIG CITY: Class Certification as to OT, Wage Notice Claims Nixed
BIOVENTUS INC: Class Action Settlement in Ciarciello Gets Final Nod
BLACKBERRY LTD: Continues to Defend Swisscanto Class Suit
BLACKBERRY LTD: Trial on Parker Class Suit Set for June 2, 2025
BLUE CROSS: Parties in Wollenberg Must Submit Amended ESI Protocol
BYTEDANCE INC: Connell Seeks OK to Distribute Judicial Notice
CAVENDISH FARMS: McGath Sues Over Potato Products' Conspiracy
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Zimmerman Loses Bid for Class Certification
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due March 14, 2025
CRAIG TANN: Miholich Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
CROCS INC: Sells Defective Shoes, Mongalo Class Suit Says
DATAMAXX APPLIED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kunze Suit Says
DEL MONTE FOODS: Vlacich Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mahoney Says
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid for Prelim. Injunction Held in Abeyance
DOLLAR GENERAL: Feb 2025 Briefing on Bid to Junk Washtenaw Suit Set
DOWLIS INSPIRED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says
DUCKHORN PORTFOLIO: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Kumar Bid to Conditionally Certify Action Tossed
EMCA INVESTMENTS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Claims
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks to Certify Class of Branch Managers
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks to Provisionally Seal Exhibits
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Response to Class Cert Due Sept. 5, 2025
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Renewed Bid for Class Status Nixed
FCA US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 7, 2025
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Final Nod
FIVE BELOW: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
FNC TABLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges
FOR EYES: Faces Pelaez Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
FULL SAIL: Buxton Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
GENE BY GENE: Shares Genetic Testing Info to Google, FB, Suit Says
GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Faces Richards Suit Over Facility Explosion
HAIAN HONEST: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Lliguicota Alleges
HAPPY SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Loyola Class Suit Says
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Certain Exhibits
HERTZ CORPORATION: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule
HONEST & QUALITY: Violates FLSA & NYLL, Paucar Suit Alleges
HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Faces Narain Suit Over Careless Driving Tickets
IDEAL IMAGE: Discloses Patients' Personal Info to FB, Suit Alleges
INGO MONEY: Corona-Cantu Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Magana Says
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
IRON CUMBERLAND: Gibel Bid to Conduct On-Site Visits Deferred
JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Belendez-Desha Wins Bid for Class Certification
JAXKELLY INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
JOHN FELTS: Winnett Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces McNamara Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
LAGOS INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Bid to Reopen Class Discovery Denied in Watson
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
LIBERTY FIRST: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McMurtry Alleges
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gyani Class Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
M LANDMAN ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Property's Architectural Barriers
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Reopen Class Discovery Denied in Greene
MARQETA INC: Faces Ford Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend CCMGERP Class Suit
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit in Ill.
MIISTA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges
MODERN WALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Guerrero Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement
NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Merson Says
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Filing Extended to Sept. 15, 2025
ODIN NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Alleges
OP PHARMACY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Cobb Alleges
PAPAYA GAMING: Uses Bots in Mobile Games, Isernia Alleges
PATTERSON COS: Continues to Defend Mehring Class Suit in California
PELICAN COVE: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Feb. 4, 2025
PELICAN COVE: Braswell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Certifies Colorado Class in Green Suit
PHARM-SAVE INC: Savidge Must File Class Cert by Jan. 10, 2025
PTC SOLUTIONS: Davis Wins FLSA Conditional Class Certification Bid
PTC SOLUTIONS: Parties Seek FLSA Conditional Class Certification
RACKSON RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Order Entered in Field
RAM PAYMENT: Bid for Class Certification Adjourned to Feb. 3, 2025
RDO EQUIPMENT: Munoz Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
ROUX BROTHERS: Bequette Seeks to Disseminate Notice
SELENE FINANCE: Court Stays Argona Class Action
SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Meyer Says
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Seeks Denial of Certeza Class Cert Bid
SUI COMMUNITIES: Faces Nelson Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 25, 2025
TAX RELIEF: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Kelly Class Suit Says
TGI FRIDAY'S: Modugno Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification
TOYOTA MOTOR: Davis Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TRADEHOME HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Handorf Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
TROJAN BATTERY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Nunez Alleges
TULE LAKE: Has Until Jan. 15, 2025 to File Complaint Response
VISA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Supracompetitive Network Fees
WILLIAMS PLUMBING: Lund Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
ZYMERGEN INC: Loses Bid to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Risks Legal Action in UK Over Talcum Powder
*********
1248 HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Bid in Tobler Suit Due March 14, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tobler, et al., v. 1248
Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02068 (D. Kan., Filed Feb.
23, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered a class setting relevant period
for all document production.
The Court additionally set the following deadlines.
-- The American Century Defendants shall Jan. 8,
2025
produce documents identified in their
Rule 26(a) disclosures no later than:
-- The parties shall confer regarding all Jan. 8,
2025
Defendants' objections, other than those
to the relevant period for production,
no later than:
-- All Defendants shall produce payroll data Jan. 15,
2025
not previously produced from Jan. 1, 2011
through Dec. 31, 2020, no later than:
-- The parties shall confer regarding ESI Jan. 17,
2025
custodians and search terms no later than:
-- All Defendants shall make their initial Jan. 31,
2025
document production based upon the ESI
searches no later than:
-- Any motions for leave to amend shall be Feb. 21,
2025
filed by:
-- Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class March 14,
2025
Certification is:
with opposition briefs due: May 16,
2025
and any reply due: June 13,
2025
The deadline for Plaintiffs to file any motion to compel further
response to their First Requests for Production to Defendants is
suspended.
However, if the Plaintiffs anticipate any need to move to compel,
they must contact the undersigned's chambers no later than Feb. 28,
2025 to request a pre-motion conference.
The deadlines for merit experts and the close of discovery set
forth in the parties' Scheduling Order are all terminated.
They will be reset at a Status Conference before Magistrate Judge
Gwynne E. Birzer set for June 24, 2025, at 10:00 AM by Video
Conference.
The nature of suit states antitrust litigation.[CC]
2227 SUPERMARKETS: Cifuentes Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN ALBERTO CIFUENTES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 2227 SUPERMARKETS INC. dba BAY MARKET; WAN CHANG
MARKET, INC.; and LI FAI, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-08447
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 10, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff says he generally worked 12 hours per shift, five
shifts per week and a sixth shift when he worked 10 hours for a
total of 70 hours per week. He was not paid wages for all hours
worked, or overtime wages. He was paid a weekly salary of $750.00
beginning in 2023 through the end of his employment. In 2022 he was
paid a weekly salary of $725.00 and in 2021 he was paid a weekly
salary of $700, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff also seeks unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each
day he worked in excess of 10 hours; liquid damages and statutory
penalties pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs.
Mr. Cifuentes was employed by the Defendants in Kings County, New
York, as a general helper, delivery person, and stock person in the
produce department at the Defendants' grocery businesses, known as
"Bay Market" from June 2021 through Nov. 23, 2023.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Cilenti, Esq.
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd St.-40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
ACADIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTER' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ACADIA
HEALTHCARE COMPANY, INC., DEBRA K. OSTEEN, CHRISTOPHER H. HUNTER,
DAVID M. DUCKWORTH, and HEATHER DIXON, Case No. 3:24-cv-01447 (M.D.
Tenn., Dec. 10, 2024) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Acadia Healthcare securities between Feb. 8, 2020 and Oct.
30, 2024, inclusive, against Acadia Healthcare and certain of its
officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants touted the quality and
safety of Acadia's inpatient services and the Company's strong
financial performance driven by solid volumes and growth in patient
days (i.e., length of stay) and same facility revenue. The
Defendants further touted strong revenue trends driven by rate
increases across all payors and positive coverage and reimbursement
trends for Medicaid, Acadia's largest source of revenue, the suit
says.
On Sept. 1, 2024, the truth began to emerge when The New York Times
published an article entitled "How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric
Hospitals Traps Patients." According to the Article, a NYTimes
investigation found that some of Acadia Healthcare's success "was
built on a disturbing practice: Acadia has lured patients into its
facilities and held them against their will, even when detaining
them was not medically necessary."
The truth was fully revealed to investors after markets closed on
Oct. 30, 2024, when Acadia issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the third quarter of 2024. In the press
release, Acadia disclosed that it had lowered its full-year 2024
revenue outlook to a range of $3.15 to $3.165 billion. Acadia also
lowered its full-year 2024 adjusted earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") to a range of $725
to $735 million.
During the related earnings call held the next day on Oct. 31,
2024, Chief Financial Officer Heather Dixon disclosed that the
lowered full-year 2024 guidance was in part due to slower
same-store patient day growth of only 3% in the month of October,
"which we believe is a result of the recent headlines and reporting
in the media."
On this news, the price of Acadia Healthcare common stock fell more
than 18%, from a closing price of $52.08 per share on Oct. 30,
2024, to a closing price of $42.69 per share on Oct. 31, 2024.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
resulting decline in market value of the Company's securities when
the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other class members have
suffered significant losses and damages.
City of Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters' Retirement System
is a public pension fund that manages over $1 billion in assets
under management and provides retirement benefits to over 2,000
police officers, firefighters, and their beneficiaries.
Acadia Healthcare is a provider of behavioral healthcare services
in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William F. Burns, Esq.
WATSON BURNS, PLLC
5865 Ridgeway Center Parkway, Suite 300
Memphis, TN 38120
Telephone: (901) 529-7996
E-mail: bburns@watsonburns.com
- and -
Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, Suite 882
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: mduenas@saxenawhite.com
- and -
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN &
LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
ADVANCED MEDICAL: Morales Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARO MORALES, and other similarly individuals v. ADVANCED
MEDICAL TRANSPORT CORP., PEDRO GONZALEZ GARCIA, and ERNESTO LAMAS,
Case No. 1:24-cv-24893 (S.D. Fla., Dec 13, 2024) seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
While employed by the Corporate Defendant, the Plaintiff worked
approximately an average of 70 hours per week without being
compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times
the regular rate at which he was employed, says the suit.
Advanced is the premier provider of emergency and scheduled
ambulance services in Central and Western Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 482-1475
E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com
AEROVIRONMENT INC: Labor Class Suit Mediation Set for May 8, 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AeroVironment Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the labor class
suit mediation is set for May 8, 2025.
On August 9, 2021, a former employee filed a class action complaint
against AeroVironment in California Superior Court in Los Angeles,
California alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor
Code related to wages, meal breaks, overtime, unreimbursed business
expenses and other recordkeeping matters.
The complaint seeks a jury trial and payment of various alleged
unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys’ fees in
unspecified amounts.
The Company filed our answer on December 16, 2021.
Written and oral discovery are ongoing.
A mediation session in this matter is currently scheduled for May
8, 2025.
Aerovironment, Inc. is into multi-domain robotic systems and
related services based in Virginia.
ANNA JAQUES: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kinney Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JILL KINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL and BETH ISRAEL LAHEY HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-13087 (D. Mass., Dec 13, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendants for their failure to secure and
safeguard approximately 316,342 persons' personally identifying
information and personal health information, including names,
demographic information, medical information, health insurance
information, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers,
financial information, and other personal or health information.
On Dec. 25, 2023, AJH discovered that an unauthorized third party
had gained access to its network systems and accessed and acquired
files containing the PII/PHI of BILH and AJH's patients, including
the Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). The Defendants
owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to implement and
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access
and disclosure. Defendants breached that duty by, among other
things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect their patients' PII/PHI from
unauthorized access and disclosure.
As a result of the Defendants' inadequate security and breach of
their duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed.
This action seeks to remedy these failings and their consequences.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all
persons whose PII/PHI was exposed as a result of the Data Breach,
which AJH discovered on or about December 25, 2023.
The Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations
of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, and seeks declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, monetary damages, statutory damages,
punitive damages, equitable relief, and all other relief authorized
by law.
The Plaintiff received healthcare or related services from
Defendants at Anna Jaques Hospital. As a condition of providing
healthcare or related services to the Plaintiff, the Defendants
required Plaintiff Kinney to provide them with her PII/PHI.
AJH is a hospital that offers services to the Merrimack Valley,
North Shore, and Southern New Hampshire areas.
BILH is a health care system that oversees several hospitals and
other health care service providers across Massachusetts and New
Hampshire.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Pastor. Esq.
PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 742-9700
Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Cook County Attorney No. 38957
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
ANTHONY WILLS: Claims in McCloud Suit Separated in Two Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER J. MCCLOUD, v.
ANTHONY WILLS, MAJOR ROWAN, LT. ROYSTER, C/O KIEFER, SANDY WALKER,
ANTHONY JONES, JOSHUA SHOENBECK, ANGIE CRAINE, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE
2, and MARGARET MADOLE, Case No. 3:24-cv-01802-NJR (S.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge Nancy Rosenstengel entered an order that Count 3 against
Angie Craine and Count 6 against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 are
severed into two separate cases:
-- As to the remaining claims, Count 1 shall proceed against
Correctional Officer Kiefer, Major Rowan, and Lieutenant
Royster.
-- Count 3 shall proceed against Anthony Wills.
-- Count 4 shall proceed against Kiefer.
-- Count 5 against Sandy Walker, Anthony Jones, and Joshua
Shoenbeck
as well as any claim against Margaret Madole are dismissed
without
prejudice.
-- McCloud's motion for status of the case is denied.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=63yd4z at no extra
charge.[CC]
ARACA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ARACA GROUP GP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09513 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 12, 2024) alleges that Lionsgate failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://shop.lionsgate.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
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 Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The Defendant operates the Lionsgate online retail store, as well
as the Lionsgate interactive Website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
ARQIT QUANTUM: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the annual
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend a securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York.
On April 18, 2023, a putative class action was filed against Arqit
and certain of its directors in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York (Index No. 153555/2023) (the "State Court Action"). The
State Court Action is based on nearly identical allegations as the
Federal Complaint, and asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act.
On October 2, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
asserting the same causes of action as in the original state court
complaint.
On November 1, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to stay the State
Court Action pending resolution of the federal action.
The plaintiffs responded to the motion to stay on December 1, 2023.
On January 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
granted the motion to stay.
Arqit believes it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously
defend against the nearly identical claims in both the Federal
Complaint and the State Court Action.
Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial
platforms.
ARQIT QUANTUM: Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit Set for 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
Arqit Quantum Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the annual
period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the ruling on the bid
to dismiss a securities class suit is expected in 2025.
On or around May 6, 2022, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Arqit and certain of Arqit's directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case No.
1:22-cv-02604), asserting violations of federal securities laws
under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the
"Federal Complaint").
The Federal Complaint generally alleges that Arqit and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to Arqit's business prospects and projections.
On September 8, 2023, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended version
of the complaint (the "Federal Complaint"), which alleges the same
general theory as the original complaint and asserts claims under
Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
On November 15, 2023, the court set a briefing schedule which
required the defendants to file their motion to dismiss on January
12, 2024.
The lead plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on March 12,
2024, and defendants replied on April 26, 2024.
The federal court will now consider the motion, with a ruling
expected in early 2025.
Arqit Quantum Inc. provides cybersecurity services via terrestrial
platforms.
AUTOBELL CAR: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Joe Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Joe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Autobell Car Wash, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-1067
(W.D.N.C., Dec. 10, 2024) contends that the Defendant betrayed the
trust of the Plaintiff and the other Class Members by failing to
properly safeguard and protect their personal identifiable
information and thereby enabling cybercriminals to steal their
valuable and sensitive information.
Between April 1, 2024 and April 7, 2024, an unknown actor gained
access to Defendant's inadequately protected computer systems. As a
result, the Plaintiff and the Class Members (as further defined
below) have had their personal identifiable information, including
their names and Social Security numbers, exposed. This class action
seeks to redress Defendant's unlawful, willful and wanton failure
to protect the personal identifiable information of over 52,000
individuals that was exposed in a major data breach of Autobell's
network in violation of its legal obligations.
For the rest of their lives, the Plaintiff and the Class Members
will have to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing
and misusing their PII. The Plaintiff and Class Members will have
to spend time responding to the Breach and are at an immediate,
imminent, and heightened risk of all manners of identity theft as a
direct and proximate result of the Data Breach, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have incurred and/or will continue
to incur damages in the form of, among other things, identity
theft, attempted identity theft, lost time and expenses mitigating
harms, increased risk of harm, damaged credit, deprivation of the
value of their PII, loss of privacy, and/or additional damages,
added the suit.
The Plaintiff and members of the class were or are Autobell
employees.
Autobell offers full-service car washing options including interior
& exterior cleaning, ride-thru & more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Jessica A. Wilkes, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
jaw@federmanlaw.com
BARRETT FINANCIAL: Seeks to Stay Conditional Class Cert. Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Blair, an Arizona
resident, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Barrett Financial Group, L.L.C., a limited liability
company, Case No. 2:24-cv-03157-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting motion to stay briefing on
Plaintiff's conditional certification motion pending resolution of
the Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss.
Alternatively, the Defendant requests an extension of its response
deadline to Jan. 8, 2024.
Should the Court grant this motion, the Defendant further requests
that the Court toll the statute of limitations for all opt-in
plaintiffs from the date Defendant filed its pending Motion to
Compel until 30 days after the Court rules on that motion.
The requested relief ensures the Court can adjudicate threshold
issues without risking wasted resources or undermining the
parties’ arbitration agreement.
Ms. Blair filed this lawsuit seeking to certify a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
On Nov. 22, 2024, the Court issued an Order Setting Rule 16
Scheduling Conference. The Court scheduled the Rule 16, scheduling
conference for Jan. 23, 2024, and has Ordered the parties to submit
a Joint Case Management Report.
On Dec. 9, 2024, the Defendant timely filed its Answer to avoid
default (Doc. 9). The Plaintiff immediately filed her Conditional
Certification Motion.
Barrett is a mortgage broker, specializing in home loans and
refinancing programs.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nIxICT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Roger A Wright, Esq.
WRIGHT LAW FIRM, PLC
4140 E. Baseline Road, Suite 101
Mesa, AZ 85206
Telephone: (480) 558-1700
E-mail: office@wrightlawaz.com
BERNER FOOD: Muhammad Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAHEEM MUHAMMAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BERNER FOOD & BEVERAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-12841
(N.D. Ill., Dec 13, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as
seeks relief from Defendant's violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
During the past three years, additional Opt-in Plaintiffs were or
are employed by Defendant in similar positions and their consent
forms will also be filed in this case.
Berner is a food and beverage supplier with multiple locations
throughout the state of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@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
E-mail: mh@melmedlaw.com
jm@melmedlaw.com
BIG CITY: Class Certification as to OT, Wage Notice Claims Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN PINEDA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BIG CITY REALTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC, BIG CITY REALTY, LLC, CFF CONSULTING INC., 3427
BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3440 BROADWAY BCR, LLC, 3660 BROADWAY BCR, LLC,
633 WEST 152 BCR, LLC, 605 WEST 151 BCR, LLC, 545 EDGECOMBE BCR,
LLC, 535-539 WEST 155 BCR, LLC, 408-412 PINEAPPLE, LLC, 106-108
CONVENT BCR, LLC, 510-512 YELLOW APPLE, LLC, 513 YELLOW APPLE, LLC,
145 PINEAPPLE LLC, 2363 ACP PINEAPPLE, LLC, 580 ST. NICHOLAS BCR,
LLC, 603- 607 WEST 139 BCR, LLC, 559 WEST 156 BCR, LLC, 3750
BROADWAY BCR, LLC, KOBI ZAMIR, and FERNANDO ALFONSO, Case No.
1:22-cv-05428-BMC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brian Cogan entered an
order granting the Plaintiff's motion for court-facilitated notice
of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action to the
extent as follows.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as to
the plaintiff's overtime, wage statement, and wage notice
claims,
and proceedings as to plaintiff's New York Labor Law (NYLL)
weekly
wage claim are stayed.
-- Within fourteen days of entry of this Order, the defendants
shall
produce a computer-readable data file including the full names,
last known mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses,
job titles, and primary languages for members of the putative
collective.
-- The Plaintiff's proposed collective action notice, opt-in form,
collective action notice reminder, and proposed emails and text
messages containing the same are approved, subject to the
modifications discussed in this Order.
The Plaintiff worked as a superintendent for defendants at their
3440 Broadway and 3427 Broadway buildings in Manhattan from
November 2021 through July 2022.
Big City is a real estate agency based in Fort Lee, NJ,
specializing in residential and commercial property transactions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RSd4wp at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIOVENTUS INC: Class Action Settlement in Ciarciello Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CIARCIELLO
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
BIOVENTUS INC., KENNETH M. REALI, MARK SINGLETON, GREGORY ANGLUM,
and SUSAN STALNECKER, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.),
the Hon. Judge Catherine Eagles entered an order granting final
certification of the class and approval of the class action
settlement and plan of allocation:
-- The requirements of Rule 23 are met, and settlement is in the
best interests of the class members. The request for
attorneys'
fees, expenses, and a service award is also reasonable. Final
judgment is entered concurrently, the Court says.
-- The earlier motion for class certification is TERMINATED as
moot.
-- The Court finally certifies the class as defined in the
amended
Stipulation, certifies Wayne as class representative, and
confirms the appointment of Wayne's counsel as class counsel.
-- The lead plaintiff's counsel's motion for attorneys' fees,
expenses and lead plaintiff's reasonable costs and expenses,
is
granted as follows:
a. Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's request for attorneys' fees of
$5,032,500, plus interest at the same rate earned by the
settlement fund, to be paid from the settlement fund is
granted.
b. Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's request for reimbursement of
$623,509 in expenses, plus interest at the same rate earned
by
the settlement fund, to be paid from the settlement fund is
granted.
c. Lead Plaintiff's request for a service award of $11,813.94
to
be paid from the settlement fund is GRANTED.
-- No later than June 16, 2025, the Claims Administrator shall
file
an interim status report concerning administration costs and
distributions. The Claims Administrator SHALL file a final
status
report concerning administration costs and distributions no
later
than Dec. 19, 2025.
-- Once the final status report is filed, the lead plaintiff and
class counsel shall confer about a cy pres recipient and SHALL
file a motion no later than Jan. 9, 2026, or a notice that
there
are no undistributed funds.
Bioventus is a medical device and pharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=09i9cv at no extra
charge.[CC]
BLACKBERRY LTD: Continues to Defend Swisscanto Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Blackberry Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Swisscanto class suit in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.
On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class
action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.)
filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue
statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for
misrepresentation.
On December 2, 2015, the Company filed a notice of motion seeking
leave to appeal this ruling.
On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for
leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a
statutory claim for misrepresentation.
On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class
comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares
between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at
least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who
acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired
those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of
Canada when the shares were acquired.
Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019.
The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019.
Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.
BLACKBERRY LTD: Trial on Parker Class Suit Set for June 2, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blackberry Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Parker employment
class suit trial is set on June 2, 2025.
On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed
against the Company in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleges that
actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to
accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada
amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment
with the Company.
The claim seeks (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory,
contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive
or breach of duty of good faith damages of CAD$20 million, or such
other amount as the Court finds appropriate, (iii) pre- and post-
judgment interest, (iv) attorneys’ fees and costs, and (v) such
other relief as the Court deems just.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class
action on May 27, 2019. The
Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification
order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to
appeal on September 17, 2019.
The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019.
The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which
did not result in an agreement.
The parties attended a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024.
The Court has set a trial date of June 2, 2025. Discovery is
proceeding.
BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software and
services to enterprises and governments based in Canada.
BLUE CROSS: Parties in Wollenberg Must Submit Amended ESI Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANAE WOLLENBERG; SHELLY
INGRAM; and RACHEL WHETSTONE, individually and on behalf of other
members of the putative class, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
KANSAS, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04029-TC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon.
Judge Teresa James entered an Order regarding time to comply with
the Court's Nov. 1, 2024, Memorandum & Order:
1) On or before Dec. 13, 2024, BCBSKS shall produce to
Plaintiffs
the list of preventive items and services that BCBSKS has
identified as having either a change of coverage or a change
in
guidance.
2) On or before Jan. 17, 2025, the Parties shall jointly submit
via
an e-mail to Judge James' chambers an Amended ESI Protocol
that
addresses custodians and search terms for purposes of BCBSKS
responding to RFP No. 3. If the Parties are unable to agree
on
custodians and search terms, each party shall submit its
proposed Amended ESI Protocol by Jan. 17, 2025.
3) BCBSKS shall fully answer Interrogatory No. 4 on or before
Jan. 31, 2025. No further extensions of time will be granted
for
answering this interrogatory.
4) On or before Feb. 28, 2025, BCBSKS shall produce all
documents
responsive to RFP Nos. 8-11 concerning those individuals who
potentially appealed a denial of coverage and answer
Interrogatory No. 3 for those individuals who potentially
appealed.
5) On or before March 31, 2025, BCBSKS shall supplement its
production of documents in response to RFP Nos. 8-11 to
produce
all responsive documents.
Blue Cross offers healthcare, dental, life insurance and Medicare
coverage.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5pIYNw at no extra
charge.[CC]
BYTEDANCE INC: Connell Seeks OK to Distribute Judicial Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Selena Connell, Jeffrey
"Beau" Wengert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ByteDance, Inc. d/b/a/ TikTok, Case No.
5:24-cv-07859-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Jan. 22, 2025,
will move for an order authorizing the distribution of judicial
notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):
(1) Directing ByteDance to produce a list (in Excel or similar
format) of all persons who worked for the Defendant as sales
employees, including Business Development Managers ("BDMs"),
Agency Development Managers ("ADMs"), Client Solutions
Managers
("CSMs"), Agency Solutions Managers ("ASMs"), Agency
Partnership Mangers ("APMs"), Brand Partnership Managers
("BPMs"), and/or other positions with similar job titles
and/or
duties (collectively, "sales employees") who were classified
as
exempt at any time three years back from the date of this
Court's Order, within 10 days of the Court's Order. This
list
should include each individual's (1) name, (2) job title,
(3)
address, (4) cell phone number, (5) dates of employment, (6)
employee identification number, and (7) personal email
address.
(2) Approving Plaintiffs' proposed forms of notice and consent
to
join form; authorizing distribution of notice by mail,
email,
and text message, with a reminder postcard and reminder text
distributed 60 days after the original notice is
disseminated;
and approving a 90-day notice period.
ByteDance employed Plaintiffs Selena Connell and Jeffrey Wengert
and other sales employees to sell its advertising products but did
not pay them overtime compensation when they worked overtime
hours.
The Plaintiff Connell worked for the Defendant from November 2021
until September 2024; the Plaintiff Wengert worked for the
Defendant from September 2021 to November 2023.
ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content
platforms that inform, educate, entertain and inspire people across
languages, and cultures.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDTDkJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 277-7235
Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
- and -
Austin Kaplan, Esq.
Andrew Eckhous, Esq.
KAPLAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
2901 Bee Cave Rd, Suite G
Austin, TX 78746
Telephone: (512) 814-8522
CAVENDISH FARMS: McGath Sues Over Potato Products' Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Logan McGath and Thomas Valenzuela, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Cavendish Farms Ltd., Cavendish Farms,
Inc., J.R. Simplot Co., Lamb Weston BSW, LLC, Lamb Weston Holdings,
Inc., Lamb Weston Sales, Inc., Lamb Weston, Inc., Lamb
Weston/Midwest, Inc., McCain Foods Limited, and McCain Foods USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-12752 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 11, 2024) is a
price-fixing case against the largest producers of frozen French
fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products
("Frozen Potato Products") in the United States, brought under
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act to address violations of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state antitrust
laws and claims of unjust enrichment.
Starting as early as of Jan. 1, 2021, and continuing to the
present, the Defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the price of Frozen Potato Products. They coordinated
price increases, often at nearly identical times, under the guise
of responding to rising input costs. These synchronized actions
allowed them to leverage a temporary spike in production expenses
as a pretext for permanent price hikes, the suit says.
Evidence demonstrates that the Defendants avoided direct price
competition with one another, instead maintaining elevated prices
through coordinated market behavior. This anticompetitive conduct
has resulted in significant financial harm to consumers, the
Plaintiffs aver.
The Plaintiff McGath is a California resident residing in the
County of Sacramento where he indirectly purchased Frozen Potatoes
from the Defendants for his personal use and suffered antitrust
injury because of the alleged violations.
Cavendish Farms is a Canadian food processing company and
subsidiary of the JD Irving group of companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert M. Foote, Esq.
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Chavez, Esq.
Bret K. Pufahl, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
1541 East Fabyan Parkway, Suite 101
Geneva, IL 60134
E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com
kcc@fmcolaw.com
ecc@fmcolaw.com
bkp@fmcolaw.com
- and -
Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
Elizabeth Castillo, Esq.
Christian S. Ruano, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com
ecastillo@cpmlegal.com
cruano@cpmlegal.com
CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Zimmerman Loses Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON ZIMMERMAN, ASIA
FOWLER, and LILLIAN MENA, individually and as representatives of a
Putative Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on behalf of all
similarly situated participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the
CEDARS-SINAI HEALTH SYSTEM 403(B) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. CEDARS-SINAI
MEDICAL CENTER; THE CEDARS-SINAI BOARD OF DIRECTORS' PENSION
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE CEDARS-SINAI DEFINED CONTRIBUTION
RETIREMENT PLANS’ COMMITTEE, ANDY ORTIZ, DEBRA LEE, ERIC HOLOMAN,
JOSHUA LOBEL, LESLIE VERMUT, RICHARD SINAIKO, STEVEN ROMICK, MARK
RAPAPORT, JAMES NATHAN, DAVID WRIGLEY, JEFF SMITH, DAVID MARSHALL,
PASY WANG, BRYAN CROFT and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
5:23-cv-01124-JLS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton
entered an order:
-- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification:
Class:
"All participants in or beneficiaries of the CEDARS-SINAI
403(B)
PLAN from June 13, 2017, through the date of judgment,
excluding
Defendants and members of the Defendant Boards and Committees;"
Sub-Class:
"All class members who currently participate in the Plan," and
-- granting the Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend for the
exclusive purpose of substituting an alternative class
representative.
The Plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)'s typicality requirement
as to the class as they have defined it, the Court says.
Named Plaintiffs Asia Fowler and Lillian Mena (“Plaintiffs”)1
are current and former participants in the Cedars-Sinai Health
System 403(B) Retirement Plan (the “Plan”), a tax-deferred,
defined contribution retirement plan.
Plaintiffs asserts three claims against Defendants: breach of
fiduciary duty of prudence; breach of fiduciary duty to monitor the
Plan investments and covered service providers; and breach of the
duty of loyalty.
Cedars-Sinai is a non-profit, tertiary, 915-bed teaching hospital
and multi-specialty academic health science center located in Los
Angeles, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9wojR at no extra
charge.[CC]
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Filing for Class Cert Bids Due March 14, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Myrna S. Seibel, on behalf
of herself and a class of all others similarly situated, Robert B.
Deaver, Amber Brown, and Catherine B. Burns, v. Century Aluminum
Company and Century Aluminum of South Carolina, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-05766-RMG (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Mark Gergel
entered an order the following amended schedule and additional
orders is established for this case.
-- The Plaintiffs served their expert disclosures on November 22,
2024, and December 3, 2024.
-- The Defendants shall file and serve a document identifying by
full
name, address, and telephone number each person whom they
expect
to call as an expert at trial and certifying that a written
report
prepared and signed by the expert including all information
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to
the
parties by the following date: January 3, 2025.
-- The parties shall mediate again by January 17, 2025.
-- Counsel shall file and serve affidavits of records custodian
witnesses proposed to be presented by affidavit at trial no
later
than February 21, 2025.
-- Discovery shall be completed no later than March 10, 2025.
-- All motions relating to class certification shall be filed no
later than March 14, 2025.
-- All dispositive motions and Daubert motions shall be filed on
or
before April 11, 2025.
Century Aluminum is a US-based producer of primary aluminum.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jy6EVp at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRAIG TANN: Miholich Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
KYLE MIHOLICH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CRAIG TANN LTD. D.B.A. HUNTINGTON AND ELLIS,
A REAL ESTATE AGENCY, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02295-AJB-VET
(S.D. Cal., December 10, 2024) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff Miholich, individually and on behalf of the proposed
Class, brings this class action lawsuit for damages resulting from
the unlawful actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and
the putative class on their respective cellular phone numbers which
are registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry in violation
of the TCPA.
The Defendant has further violated the law by bombarding consumers'
mobile phones registered with the National Do-Not Call Registry
with non-emergency advertising and marketing text messages without
prior express written consent, says the suit.
Craig Tann Ltd. is a real estate agency with its principal place of
business in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
Nadir O. Ahmed, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com
nadir@kazlg.com
- and -
Alex S. Madar, Esq.
MADAR LAW CORPORATION
11510 Eaglesview Ct.
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 299-5879
Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net
CROCS INC: Sells Defective Shoes, Mongalo Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE MONGALO, CHELSEA GARLAND, PHILIP WERNER, and MELISSA
HARMON, each an individual, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated v. CROCS, INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-09037 (N.D. Cal., Dec 13, 2024) concerns shoes that the
Defendant makes that are made of 90% or more Croslite (TM)
material, under the brand name "Crocs," including but not limited
to the following models: Classic Clog, Classic Clog (kids), Classic
Clog (toddlers), Classic Tie Dye Clog, the Bayaband Clog, and the
Baya Clog.
For over two-decades, the Defendant has marketed, advertised, and
sold the Products without alerting consumers that these shoes are
constructed of a material that shrinks upon exposure to ordinary
heat and/or direct sunlight. Such exposures cause the Products to
shrink and/or warp, including to the point where they no longer fit
the purchaser's feet. This design flaw defeats the fundamental
purpose of the Products since the shrinkage and/or warping renders
them unwearable and worthless. The Products are, thus, unsuitable
for ordinary use, the Plaintiffs contend.
Accordingly the Defendant has breached, and continues to breach,
its express and implied warranties. Defendant breached its express
limited warranty by selling shoes that are defective at the time of
purchase because they are made of material that shrinks when
exposed to ordinary conditions such as heat and/or sunlight.
Defendant similarly breached its implied warranty of
merchantability because shoes that shrink if exposed to ordinary
amounts of sun and/or, heat fall below a minimum level of quality
for ordinary use as shoes.
The complaint is against Crocs for fraud, deceit, and/or
misrepresentation; violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act;
false advertising; negligent misrepresentation; unfair, unlawful,
and deceptive trade practices; breach of express and implied
warranties; and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
CROCS, INC. is an American footwear company based in Broomfield,
Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
Kali Backer (State Bar No. 342492)
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
anthony@gutridesafier.com
kali@gutridesafier.com
DATAMAXX APPLIED: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Kunze Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN KUNZE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DATAMAXX APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00501-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., December 10,
2024) is a class action against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers of
Defendant totaling thousands of individuals, including their names
and Social Security numbers.
On December 17, 2023, the Defendant discovered that it had
experienced a cyberattack in which it lost control of the sensitive
PII of Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members. Despite
discovering the data breach in December 2023, the Defendant failed
to notify Plaintiff and the Class for 11 months even though a
reasonable cybersecurity incident response plan is designed to
ensure companies can timely respond to cyberattacks.
Because of Defendant's egregious failures to implement reasonable,
industry standard cybersecurity safeguards, Plaintiff and the
proposed Class Members have suffered a serious invasion of their
privacy and must now face a substantial increase in identity theft
and financial fraud for years to come, says the suit.
Datamaxx Applied Technologies, Inc. provides information technology
service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
- and -
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gwells@stranchlaw.com
DEL MONTE FOODS: Vlacich Seeks to File Class Cert Docs Under Seal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Vlacich, Ana
Krstic, Lisa Malara, and Teena Stambaugh, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Del Monte Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00892-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting motion to file under seal the
following:
Document Portion(s) Designating Entity and
Reason(s)
to Seal for Sealing
Plaintiffs' Pages: 9, The material has been
designated
opposition to 10, 11, 12. "CONFIDENTIAL" by Defendant
Del
Defendant's Monte pursuant to the
Protective
Motion to Order. Plaintiffs therefore
are
Exclude Expert not in a position to place
this
Bruce Silverman information in the public
record.
Plaintiffs' Pages: 7, 9. The material has been
designated
Reply in "CONFIDENTIAL" by Defendant
Del
Support of Monte pursuant to the
Protective
Motion for Order. Plaintiffs therefore
are
Class not in a position to place
this
Certification information in the public
record.
Del Monte is an American food production and distribution company
and subsidiary of NutriAsia.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2PfIpU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard Lyon, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Jonas B. Jacobson, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: rick@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
jonas@dovel.com
- and -
Zack Broslavsky, Esq.
BROSLAVSKY & WEINMAN, LLP
1500 Rosecrans. Ave, Suite 500
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 575-2550
Facsimile: (310) 464-3550
E-mail: zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mahoney Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA MAHONEY, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, Case No. 1:24-cv-09575
(S.D.N.Y., Dec 13, 2024) arises out of Deloitte's failures to
properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately
destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal
identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its
business purposes.
According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack in December to compromise
Defendant's network that contained personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
individuals.
The class action arises out of a 2024 data breach of documents and
information stored on the computer network of Deloitte, a
third-party company assisting in business operations for RIBridges,
a large government entity. The Defendant launched an investigation
into the Data Breach and confirmed that an unauthorized actor
accessed its system on December 5, 2024, and may have copied and
exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiff(s)'s and Class
Members’ Private Information. Despite learning of the Data Breach
on or about December 5, 2024, and determining that Private
Information was involved in the breach, the Defendant has not begun
sending notices of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff contends.
On its computer network, Deloitte holds and stores certain highly
sensitive personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff(s)
and the putative Class Members, who are individuals who applied for
or are enrolled in state administered benefits by RIBridges, i.e.,
individuals who provided their highly sensitive and private
information in exchange for employment and/or state services.
Deloitte also admits "that there had been a breach of the RIBridges
system based on a screenshot of file folders sent by the hacker to
Deloitte" and that the file also revealed "personal identifiable
data from RIBridges."
As a result of Deloitte's Data Breach, the Plaintiff and thousands
of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of
financial losses resulting from identity theft, out-of-pocket
expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain, and the value
of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects
of the attack, alleges the suit.
Mahoney is a recipient of benefits through RIBridges, which is
serviced by Deloitte.
Deloitte is a third-party servicer to RIBridges. Deloitte provides
audit and assurance, consulting, tax and related services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
- and -
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Telephone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490
Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
Telephone: (513) 345-8297
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
- and -
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
COUNSELORS AT LAW
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bid for Prelim. Injunction Held in Abeyance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as K.Y., et al., v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03056 (D.D.C., Filed Oct. 28,
2024), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Nichols entered an order on motion to
hold in abeyance.
-- Given the Plaintiffs' concession that the named plaintiffs no
longer require preliminary relief.
-- The motion for preliminary injunction shall be held in abeyance
pending briefing on the motion to certify class.
The nature of suit states alleges Civil Rights.[CC]
DOLLAR GENERAL: Feb 2025 Briefing on Bid to Junk Washtenaw Suit Set
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the briefing for
the Washtenaw class suit dismissal motion is set for February
2025.
On November 27, 2023, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee in which the plaintiffs allege that during
the putative class periods noted below, the Company and certain of
its current and former officers violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting the impact of alleged store labor,
inventory, pricing and other practices on the Company's financial
results and prospects: Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement
System v. Dollar General Corporation, et al. (Case No.
3:23-cv-01250) (putative class period of May 28, 2020 to August 30,
2023).
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable/injunctive
relief, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.
On April 4, 2024, the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Shareholder Securities Litigation.
On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, adding a claim that lead plaintiffs and certain members
of the putative class purchased shares of the Company's common
stock contemporaneously with common stock sales by certain
individual defendants.
On October 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, expanding the putative class period to cover May
28, 2020 to August 28, 2024.
On November 15, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint.
Briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss is scheduled to be
completed on February 21, 2025.
Dollar General Corporation is a discount retailer in the United
States with 19,726 stores located in 48 U.S. states and Mexico as
of November 3, 2023, with the greatest concentration of stores in
the southern, southwestern, midwestern and eastern United States.
DOWLIS INSPIRED: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Martinez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. DOWLIS INSPIRED BRANDING INC.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-08506 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2024) alleges that
Dowlis failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, http//:www.Merchandise.cisco.com, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant is denying blind and
visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Dowlis provides to their
non-disabled customers through the website. The Defendant' denial
of full and eqal 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 Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. He uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer
to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition
of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of
less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this
definition have limited vision; others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
The access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Dowlis excludes the blind and visually impaired from
the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy
that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
and daily living, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of
the Core Adidas Polo -- Black and the Core Eco Trucker Hat for
delivery to his home on Merchandise.cisco.com. However, unless
Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website,
Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to
independently navigate, browse, use, and complete a transaction on
Merchandise.cisco.com.
Merchandise.cisco.com provides to the public a wide array of the
information, services, and other programs offered by Dowlis. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
DUCKHORN PORTFOLIO: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Duckhorn Portfolio Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a labor clas suit in San Benito
County Superior Court.
On March 22, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a
putative class action in San Benito County Superior Court, seeking
to represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of
California.
The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and related statutes.
Plaintiff has also served a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")
notice for the same alleged wage and hour violations.
The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime)
and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs. The parties have agreed to participate in mediation of
one plaintiff's individual PAGA claim and the representative PAGA
claims in March 2025. The claim is in an early stage, and the
amount of any loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this date.
The Company has retained outside legal counsel to defend this
action.
The Duckhorn Portfolio, Inc. is a wine company based in
California.
EAGLE TRUCKLINE: Kumar Bid to Conditionally Certify Action Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAJAT KUMAR, v. EAGLE
TRUCKLINE LLC, SIMAR GILL, and GURKIRAT GILL, Case No.
1:23-cv-02581-KMW-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Karen Williams
entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally
certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class
members.
The Court does not approve conditional certification of the
proposed collective action.
The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiff's request to
equitably toll the statute of limitations for potential class
members is denied as moot.
Eagle is an active carrier in Carteret, New Jersey.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t7Vhhd at no extra
charge.[CC]
EMCA INVESTMENTS: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Brito Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO v. EMCA INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-24825
(S.D. Fla., Dec. 10, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 12181, et seq. of the "Americans with Disabilities
Act.
The Defendant has allegedly discriminated against the individual
Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment
of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and businesses located
therein, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. section 12182 et seq.
Furthermore, the Defendant continues to discriminate against the
Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated, by failing to make
reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when
such modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to
individuals with disabilities.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
located within the Commercial Property to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
Commercial Property, and businesses located within the Commercial
Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and use of each of
the premises, the suit says.
Mr. Brito is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down)
and is therefore substantially limited in major life activities due
to his impairment. He requires the use of a wheelchair to
ambulate.
Emca Investments owned and operated a commercial property at 5120
Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida, 33137.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J.
DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks to Certify Class of Branch Managers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class
consisting of:
"All individuals who worked for the Defendants as assistant
branch
managers in Massachusetts between Dec. 21, 2014, and Nov. 26,
2016."
The Plaintiff and putative class members all have a uniform
interest to expose Enterprise's misclassification of them and to
establish a right to recovery based on that scheme.
The Plaintiff's interests do not differ from those of the class as
a whole, in that he seeks to benefit the proposed class by
obtaining damages for its members.
The Plaintiff Mamadou Alpha Bah brought this class action lawsuit
on behalf of himself and those similarly situated alleging that the
Defendants misclassified their assistant branch managers as
overtime exempt executives under the Massachusetts Overtime Law,
and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Between Dec. 21, 2014, and Nov. 26, 2016, the Defendants paid their
Massachusetts assistant branch managers a flat salary – without
overtime –even though they routinely worked 50 hours per week or
more.
On Nov. 27, 2016, the Defendants reclassified their assistant
branch managers across Massachusetts (and indeed across the entire
country) as non-exempt from overtime in line with their proper
legal status. The Defendants, however, did not provide backpay for
the unpaid overtime that the Plaintiff and the putative class
suffered when they were misclassified as exempt.
Enterprise Holdings is an American private holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ooOTRX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: Bah Seeks to Provisionally Seal Exhibits
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAMADOU ALPHA BAH,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. and ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR
COMPANY OF BOSTON, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-12542-MLW (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to
provisionally seal Exhibits F, H, and J to their motion for class
certification Pursuant to Local Rule 7:
-- These exhibits are documents that Defendants have produced in
discovery that they have designated as confidential.
-- The Plaintiff believes that these Exhibits do not warrant
protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
-- However, because Defendants have designated them as
confidential,
Plaintiff seeks to submit them under seal until Defendants have
had the opportunity to respond, and the Court has had the
opportunity to consider their arguments regarding
confidentiality.
-- Thus, Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to file the
aforementioned Exhibits under seal.
Enterprise Holdings is an American private holding company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mdz2lV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
ESSENTIA HEALTH: Response to Class Cert Due Sept. 5, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kraft, et al., v. Essentia
Health, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00121 (D.N.D., Filed July 10,
2020), the Hon. Judge Peter D. Welte entered a scheduling order as
follows:
-- The Defendants must produce certain Jan. 15,
2025
documents described in the Stipulation
by:
-- Motions to Amend the Pleadings, Amend the March 28,
2025
Pleadings to Add Punitive Damages, and to
Join Additional Parties are due by:
-- Discovery is due by: May 16,
2025
-- Discovery Motions are due by: June 3,
2025
-- Plaintiffs' Class Certification Expert July 22,
2025
Witness Disclosures and Reports and Motion
for Class Certification are due by:
-- The Defendants' Class Certification Sept. 5,
2025
Expert Witness Disclosures and Reports
and Response to the Motion for Class
Certification are due by:
-- The Plaintiffs' Rebuttal Class Certification: Oct. 17,
2025
The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability.
Essentia Health is an integrated healthcare system with facilities
in Minnesota, Wisconsin.[CC]
FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE: Aboah Renewed Bid for Class Status Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GWENDOLINE ABOAH AND TANIA
STEWART, v. FAIRFIELD HEALTHCARE SERVS., INC. d/b/a, BRIGHTSTAR
CARE OF FAIRFIELD & SOUTHBURY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00763-SVN (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Sarala Nagala entered an order denying
BrightStar's motion to certify for interlocutory appeal and for
certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Likewise, the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification is
denied:
"All Caregivers or HHAs BrightStar employed in Connecticut
during
the period of June 2, 2018, until June 2, 2020, who worked at
least
one 24-hour shift (live-in shift) for BrightStar, who BrightStar
(1) failed to compensate for sleep time absent a written
agreement
to do so and (2) failed to pay proper overtime wages because it
did
not account for the value of food and lodging when calculating
the
regular rate of pay used in determining overtime compensation."
The Court will contact the parties to select a date for trial and
set deadlines for pre-trial submissions.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the most important factor weighs
heavily against certification. Certifying this case for
interlocutory appeal would not materially advance the termination
of this trial-ready matter.
Indeed, because it could take at least months for the appeal to
resolve, it would work against that objective. For these reasons,
exercising its discretion, the Court will not certify BrightStar's
proposed question for interlocutory appeal.
The Plaintiffs Gwendoline Aboah and Tania Stewart, formerly live-in
caregivers for Defendant Fairfield Healthcare Services, brought
this action seeking to recover unpaid compensation pursuant to
Section 16 of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
section 201 et seq., and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act
("CMWA").
In September 2021, Plaintiffs moved for class certification for
their claims of unpaid wages under the CMWA.
BrightStar Care is a home care and medical staffing agency.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1P6Xdt at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due May 7, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D'Angelo, et al., v. FCA
US, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00982 (S.D. Cal., Filed May 30, 2023),
the Hon. Judge William Q. Hayes entered an order granting the
parties' joint motion to continue deadline to complete class
discovery and to amend the scheduling order:
-- All fact discovery for Plaintiff's motion April 7,
2025
for class certification shall be completed
on or before:
-- The Plaintiff(s) must file a motion for May 7, 2025
class certification on or before:
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.[CC]
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA: Class Settlement in Berry Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WENDY BERRY, et al., v.
FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00326-KLL (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Karen Litkovitz entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class action
settlement (doc. 186) and motion for attorney fees, expenses,
administrative costs, and class representatives' service awards.
The following Settlement Class is finally certified under Rule
23(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the FirstGroup America,
Inc.
Retirement Savings Plan at any time on or after Oct. 1, 2013
through the date of preliminary approval, who had any portion of
their account invested in the Aon Hewitt Funds, excluding
Defendants, any of their directors, and current or former
members
of the Employee Benefits Committee or Employee Retirement
Benefits
Committee who served on such committee since Oct. 1, 2013."
Class counsel's requested fee award equal to one-third of the
common fund, or $3,000,000, is fair and reasonable for the work
performed in this matter and shall be deducted from the Gross
Settlement Amount and paid in accordance with the Amended
Settlement Agreement. The actual hours expended by class counsel
times their reasonable hourly rate exceeds this amount. Thus, the
Court's lodestar cross-check supports the attorney fees awarded.
Class counsel's requested reimbursement of litigation expenses of
$614,047.43 is fair and reasonable. In addition, the settlement
administration expenses in the amount of $116,444 are reasonable
and necessary to carry out the terms of the Amended Settlement
Agreement on behalf of the Class. Both sums shall be deducted from
the Gross Settlement Amount and paid in accordance with the Amended
Settlement Agreement.
A service award of $10,000 to each of the three class
representatives is fair, reasonable, and necessary to compensate
the class representatives for their time and effort and the risk
assumed in pursuing this action. This sum shall be deducted from
the Gross Settlement Amount and paid in accordance with the Amended
Settlement Agreement.
FirstGroup is a private sector provider of public transport.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dTkxGL at no extra
charge.[CC]
FIVE BELOW: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Five Below Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On August 1, 2024, a putative class action was filed against Five
Below, Inc. and a certain former senior officer in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
purportedly on behalf of a class of the Company's investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired its publicly traded securities
between March 20, 2024 and July 16, 2024.
On September 16, 2024, a similar action was commenced against Five
Below, Inc. in the same court on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities
between December 1, 2022 and July 16, 2024.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with various public statements
made by the Company.
On October 28, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the
actions and appointing lead plaintiff. The deadline for lead
plaintiff to file its Consolidated Amended Complaint is January 13,
2025. Defendants' response thereto, including any motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint, is due sixty (60) days from the
filing of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these actions,
which the Company believes to be without merit.
Five Below, Inc. operates as a specialty value retailer. The
Company offers phone cases, led lights, headphones, chargers,
crafts, clothing, stationery, party supplies, candy, sports, media,
beauty, books, and pet products. [BN]
FNC TABLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FNC Table, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09472 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
12, 2024) alleges that FNC failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, https://www.momoyanyc.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendants denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services, and in conjunction with its
physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act, the lawsuit adds.
According to the complaint, the access barriers make it impossible
for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website. Thus, FNC Table excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living. By failing to make the
website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic
equal access requirements under both state and federal law, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired"
to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision; others have no vision.
FNC Table provides to the public a website known as Momoyanyc.com
which provides consumers with access to an array of services,
including, the ability to explore authentic Japanese dining
services, including dine-in reservations, online ordering, party
events, catering services, and takeout. Consumers across the United
States use Defendant’s website to view authentic Japanese cuisine
and restaurant services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.,
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Brooklyn, NY 11234
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
FOR EYES: Faces Pelaez Class Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messaging
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER PELAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FOR EYES OPTICAL COMPANY, Case No.
1:24-cv-24871-KMW (S.D. Fla., Dec. 12, 2024) s a putative class
action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, to promote its goods, services, and/or
properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and
continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of
Defendant's solicitations. The Defendant also engages in
telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and
training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon
seclusion, 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.
On Nov. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of Defendant's
text messages by replying with a stop instruction. The Defendant
ignored the Plaintiff's request and continued text messaging
Plaintiff. The Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's opt-out
requests demonstrates that Defendant has not instituted procedures
for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text
messages from the Defendant, the lawsuit adds.
The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as
follows:
"All persons within the United States who, within the four years
prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of class
certification, received two or more text messages within any
12-month period, from or on behalf of the Defendant, regarding
Defendant's goods, services, or properties, to said person's
residential cellular telephone number, after communicating to
Defendant that they did not wish to receive text messages by
replying to the messages with a “stop” or similar opt-out
instruction.
For Eyes is part of EssilorLuxottica which designs, manufactures,
and distributes ophthalmic lenses, frames, and sunglasses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
Zanec C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
FULL SAIL: Buxton Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN BUXTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FULL
SAIL, LLC and THE OFFICE GURUS, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00747-JSS-DCI
(M.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting
this joint Motion, extending the deadlines for Plaintiff to move
for class certification to March 21, 2025, and for the defendants
to respond to such motion to April 21, 2025, and to issue any
further relief the Court deems just and proper.
The class discovery sought by the Plaintiff is important to her
forthcoming motion for class certification. Plaintiff needs
sufficient time to review this information and documents produced,
and consult with experts she intends to rely upon with respect to
her class certification motion.
The additional time requested will allow the Plaintiff an
opportunity to obtain the necessary class discovery, depose Full
Sail and TOG on such documents, consult with any necessary experts,
and prepare and file her class certification motion
The Parties agree the extensions would best serve the needs of the
case, and that this joint motion is filed in good faith and not for
any improper purpose, such as delaying this cause.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m8nnAR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
E-mail: eggnatz@justiceearned.com
- and -
Max S. Morgan, Esq.
THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (267) 587-6240
E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
Michael T. Ramsey, Esq.
SHEEHAN & RAMSEY, PLLC
429 Porter Avenue
Ocean Springs, Mississippi 39564 Tel:
Telephone: (228) 231-0715
E-mail: mike@sheehanramsey.com
The Defendants are represented by:
William E. Raney, Esq.
Kellie Mitchell Bubeck, Esq.
Colin Gregory, Esq.
COPILEVITZ, LAM & RANEY, P.C.
310 W. 20 St., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 472-9000
Facsimile: (816) 472-5000
E-mail: braney@clrkc.com
kbubeck@clrkc.com
cgregory@clrkc.com
- and -
Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq.
Amy M. Bowers, Esq.
STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA
NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC
2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 614-1415
Facsimile: (305) 614-1425
E-mail: tkolaya@sknlaw.com
abowers@sknlaw.com
- and -
Gregory W. Herbert, Esq.
Stephen G. Anderson, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
450 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 650
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1000
E-mail: herbertg@gtlaw.com
andersonst@gtlaw.com
GENE BY GENE: Shares Genetic Testing Info to Google, FB, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA NEBLOCK and XODUS MOORE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GENE BY GENE, LTD. d/b/a
FAMILYTREEDNA, Case No. 3:24-cv-50501 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 12, 2024)
alleges that Defendant collects and transmits personally
identifiable information regarding both the fact that its customers
have been subject to genetic testing, and the results of that
genetic testing (Genetic Testing Information), to third parties,
including Alphabet, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc., through its use
of surreptitious online tracking tools.
According to the complaint, unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other
visitors to Defendant's website, the Defendant does not keep
sensitive information about its visitors private. A person's
genetic code is the single most sensitive piece of information
pertaining to them. It can reveal a multitude of private facets of
their life, including their health conditions, ethnic background,
predisposition to cognitive and physical disorders, their
parentage, and the parentage of their children.
If Google or Facebook receives information that a person is using
genetic testing to research their ancestry or health conditions,
they will use that information, and allow their clients to use that
information, to stream ads to that person's computers and
smartphones related to other genetic testing products, as well as
products and services related to the person’s genetic results or
health conditions.
Google and Facebook offer website operators access to their
proprietary suites of marketing, advertising, and customer
analytics software, including Google Analytics, Google
AdSense, Google Tag Manager, Meta Business Suite, and Facebook Ads
(collectively, the "Business Tools").
Armed with these Business Tools, website operators can leverage
Google and Facebook's enormous database of consumer information for
the purposes of deploying targeted advertisements, performing
minute analyses of their customer bases, and identifying new market
segments that may be exploited.
Each of the Plaintiffs and Class Members visited the Website and
had their personal Genetic Testing Information tracked by Defendant
using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendant never obtained
authorization from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share their
Genetic Testing Information with third parties, says the suit.
Gene by Gene is a commercial genetic testing company based in
Houston, Texas. The company was owned by Bennett Greenspan and Max
Blankfeld.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyle McLean, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
David J. DiSabato, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: kmclean@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ssingh@sirillp.com
ddisabato@sirillp.com
GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Faces Richards Suit Over Facility Explosion
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEAGAN DURAND and MARTIN RICHARDS, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION., a
Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00718-DJH (W.D. Ky., Dec.
10, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for damages
caused from the explosion of Defendant's manufacturing facility
located at 1901 Payne Street, Louisville, KY on Nov. 12, 2024.
According to the complaint, the explosion sent off literal
shockwaves throughout Louisville, much like a large bomb, resulting
in at least two deaths, dozens of personal injuries, and millions
in property damage suffered by both businesses and private
individuals living within the vicinity of the factory. The
explosion resulted in an immediate shelter-in-place order for a
1-mile radius from the area, and an evacuation order for multiple
blocks surrounding the facility that continues to this day. Indeed,
many, if not the majority of individuals located within the
evacuation area will never be able to return or have already been
forced to permanently leave.
The explosion also caused inevitable criminal activity. And,
because of the damage caused by the explosion, the residences
suffered severe damage such that many doors, windows, and entryways
broke allowing easy access inside. Predictably, many of the
properties within the evacuation zone were burglarized, repeatedly.
Even after receiving repeated notice of the critical security
issue, Givaudan did not provide or effectuate reasonable and
necessary security measures to ensure that further burglaries would
be avoided. Nor did Givaudan offer compensation for damaged (or
confiscated) property whether caused by the explosion itself or
through foreseeable criminal activity afterwards. And so, criminals
came back again, and again, the Plaintiffs aver.
While Givaudan has paid lip service to offering some help, class
members have had to bear the brunt of the financial impact of the
explosion by themselves. Givaudan has not provided compensation for
the big ticket items – damage to property caused by the explosion
and reasonable, long term housing.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action for Givaudan's negligence,
gross negligence and nuisance. They each resided at 102 Weist
Place, Louisville, KY 40206 at the time of the explosion at the
Factory.
Givaudan owns and maintains a factory located at 1901 Payne Street,
Louisville, KY 40206. The factory was primarily used to manufacture
caramel color additives for food and beverage products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq.
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
E-mail: sasha@skclassactions.com
yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
COULSON P.C.
300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700
Detroit, MI 48207
Telephone: (313) 644-2685
E-mail: nick@coulsonpc.com
HAIAN HONEST: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Lliguicota Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ALBERTO QUITO LLIGUICOTA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HAIAN HONEST RENOVATION INC., and HAI
WANG, ZEMEI WANG and JILIN ZHONG, as individuals, Case No.
1:24-cv-08531 (E.D.N.Y., Dec 13, 2024) seeks to recover damages for
egregious violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants, as a construction
worker, demolition worker and concrete worker, while performing
related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from in or around
June 2018 until in or around November 2024. The Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for all
his hours worked from in or around January 2019 until in or around
December 2021 and from in or around January 2024 until in or around
November 2024, a violation of the minimum wage provisions contained
in the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit.
Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 69 hours per week
during the relevant statutory period, the Defendants did not pay
Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a violation of
the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff further seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies the Court deems appropriate.
HAIAN HONEST RENOVATION INC. is a construction company based in New
York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
HAPPY SUSHI: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Loyola Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO LOYOLA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated known and unknown, v. HAPPY SUSHI WP LLC d/b/a
GORILLA SUSHI and ADAM YIN, Case No. 1:24-cv-12840 (N.D. Ill., Dec
13, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the Defendants' failure to pay
overtime wages at a premium rate of one and one half times
Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked over 40.
Mr. Loyola is a former employee of the Defendants. The Plaintiff
began his employment with the Defendants in 2021 and his last day
of employment was May 5, 2024. He handled materials such as knives
that were not manufactured in the state of Illinois.
The Defendants operate restaurants in Chicago under the name
Gorilla Sushi.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
11 E. Adams St., Suite 1401
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312)957-9005
Facsimile: (888)826-5848
E-mail: cbecerra@becerralawgroup.com
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks to Impound Certain Exhibits
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order impounding:
(i) Exhibits 1-4 of the Supplemental Declaration of Yitzchak
Kopel
in Support of Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply and
Opposition to the Motion to Strike the Testimony of Dr.
Narseo
Vallina-Rodriguez ("Supplemental Kopel Declaration"); and
(ii) portions of Plaintiff's Class Certification Reply Brief and
Opposition to the Motion to Strike the Testimony of Dr.
Narseo
Vallina-Rodriguez that rely on or cite to the
aforementioned
documents.
In support of his motion to Impound, the Plaintiff states as
follows:
1. Exhibit 1 to the Supplemental Kopel Declaration is a true and
correct copy of the Deposition Transcript of Dr. Christian M.
Dippon, which has been marked "Confidential" pursuant to
section
2.1 of the Protective Order.
2. Exhibit 2 to the Supplemental Kopel Declaration is a true and
correct copy of the Deposition Transcript of Dr. Joel
Reardon,
which has been marked "Confidential" pursuant to section 2.1
of
the Protective Order.
3. Exhibit 3 to the Kopel Declaration is a true and correct copy
of
the Deposition Transcript of James E. Vint, which has been
marked "Confidential" pursuant to section 2.1 of the
Protective
Order.
4. Exhibit 4 to the Kopel Declaration is a true and correct copy
of
the Expert Report of Dr. Joel Reardon ("Reardon
Declaration"),
which has been marked "Confidential" pursuant to section 2.1
of
the Protective Order.
Hearst Television owns and operates local television and radio
stations serving 26 media markets across 39 states.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTyJTG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and-
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDN SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HERTZ CORPORATION: Parties Seek to Modify Case Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEENA MAHARAJ, an
individual; RODOLFO SCHULZ, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and other aggrieved employees, v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 3:23-cv-04726-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying case schedule as
follows:
Current Date Proposed
Date
Motion for Class certification: Jan. 8, 2025 Apr. 8,
2025
Opposition: Feb. 5, 2025 May 6, 2025
Reply: Feb. 19, 2025 May 20,
2025
Hearing on Motion for Class March 6, 2025 June 5,
2025
Certification:
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j3hGnb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (213) 514-5681
Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
at@haffnerlawyers.com
vh@haffnerlawyers.com
- and -
Michael Palitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
477 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (800) 616-4000
E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com
- and -
Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite #101
Tampa, FL 33625
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew J. Weissler, Esq.
Keith Ybanez, Esq.
HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP
8001 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1500
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Telephone: (314) 480-1926
Facsimile: (314) 480-1595
E-mail: aj.weissler@huschblackwell.com
keith.ybanez@huschblackwell.com
HONEST & QUALITY: Violates FLSA & NYLL, Paucar Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
SEGUNDO FAVIAN GUAMAN PAUCAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HONEST & QUALITY CORP. and KINAM HAN,
as an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-08535 (E.D.N.Y., Dec 13, 2024)
seeks to recover damages for violations of Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law arising out of the Plaintiff's employment at
Honest & Quality located at 70-62 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, New York.
As a direct result of the Defendants' violations and failure to
provide proper wage notices and wage statements, the Plaintiff
suffered a concrete harm, resulting from his inability to identify
Plaintiff's employer to remedy his compensation problems, lack of
knowledge about the rates of pay he was receiving and/or should
have receiving for his regular hours and overtime hours, terms, and
conditions of his pay, and furthermore, an inability to identify
his hourly rate of pay to ascertain whether he was being properly
paid in compliance with the FLSA and NYLL -- which he was not, says
the suit.
Furthermore, the Defendants' alleged willful failures to provide
Plaintiff with these documents prevented Plaintiff from being able
to calculate his hours worked, and proper rates of pay, and
determine if he was being paid time-and-a-half for his overtime
hours as required by the FLSA and NYLL.
The Plaintiff further seeks compensatory damages and liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and
equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.
HONEST & QUALITY CORP. provides interior and exterior general
contracting services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
HUDSON COUNTY, NJ: Faces Narain Suit Over Careless Driving Tickets
------------------------------------------------------------------
DIN NARAIN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated
v. HUDSON COUNTY, Case No. 2:24-cv-11100-JXN-JSA (D.N.J., Dec. 12,
2024) addresses the routine practice by the Hudson County Sheriff's
Office of issuing careless driving tickets without providing any
procedural due process notice of the factual basis for the charges
before trial.
On Dec. 30, 2022, while Mr. Narain was driving with his wife on
Kennedy Boulevard in Jersey City at around 8:20 a.m., he was
stopped by Hudson County Sheriff’s Officer, A. Napolitano.
Officer Napolitano told Mr. Narain he stopped him because he was
speeding. Mr. Narain denied he was speeding and asked to see the
readout from the radar device. Officer Napolitano told Mr. Narain
that he didn't use radar. Instead, Officer Napolitano told Mr.
Narain that he was able to determine his speed based on his radar
training, the lawsuit says.
Instead of issuing Mr. Narain a speeding ticket, Officer Napolitano
issued Mr. Narain a ticket for careless driving. At no time during
the stop did Officer Napolitano tell Mr. Narain he was driving
carelessly.
The complaint-summons issued to Mr. Narain had no facts to support
the charge of careless driving and merely cited the careless
driving statute. The "Notes" section of the ticket was blank.
Hudson County is the smallest and most densely populated county in
the U.S. state of New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS PACIORKOWSKI
102 Lord Avenue
Bayonne, N.J. 07002
E-mail: tom@paciorkowski.net
Telephone: (201) 204-2760
IDEAL IMAGE: Discloses Patients' Personal Info to FB, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
G.M., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. IDEAL IMAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 24CV2297
AJB BJC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2024) is a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all California residents who accessed
https://www.idealimage.com to schedule a consultation for medical
treatment and/or services.
In or around October 2023, the Plaintiff used the Website to book a
consultation for a CoolSculpting fat loss procedure at one of
Defendant's medical facilities in San Diego California. During the
booking process, the Plaintiff disclosed to Defendant that she was
specifically interested in receiving CoolSculpting treatment.
Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, the Defendant assisted Facebook with
incepting Plaintiff's communications, including those that
contained personally identifiable information ("PII"), protected
health information ("PHI"), and related confidential information.
The Defendant assisted these interceptions without Plaintiff's
knowledge, consent, or express written authorization, the suit
says.
As a consequence of these interceptions, the Plaintiff has received
advertisements marketing body contouring and other weight loss
procedures, specifically targeted at Plaintiff as a result of
Defendant's disclosure of her medical booking information to
Facebook. The Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality by
unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's PII and PHI, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff bring this action for legal and equitable remedies
resulting from these illegal actions.
Ideal Image owns and operates a national network of medical clinics
specializing in procedures like laser hair removal, fat reduction,
and filler injections.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33133-5402
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
Facsimile: (305) 676-9006
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
INGO MONEY: Corona-Cantu Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIE CORONA-CANTU,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
INGO MONEY INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03023-MHC (N.D. Ga.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed class action settlement
with Defendant Ingo Money, Inc.,
(2) Certifying the Settlement Class;
(3) Appointing Settlement Class Representative and Settlement
Class
Counsel;
(4) Approving Class Notice;
(5) Scheduling a date for the Final Approval Hearing; and
(6) for such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and
proper.
Ingo Money is a technology-based financial services company.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Guq5nd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (678) 642-2503
E-mail: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (929) 677-5144
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fails to Pay Minimum, OT Wages, Magana Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MAGANA, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY; SELECT STAFFING, LLC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32744 (Cal. Super., Dec. 11,
2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate the
Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former employees for all
hours worked, including minimum wages and overtime wages, brought
pursuant to Labor Code section 2698 et seq.
As a pattern and practice, the Defendants allegedly failed to
provide the Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former
employees with legally mandated meal periods and rest breaks and
failed to pay proper compensation for this failure.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in the State of California.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory time
period.
International Paper is an American manufacturer of pulp and paper
products, including printing paper, and specialty paper
products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Daniel J. Park, Esq.
Jaeyoung Lee, Esq.
MOON LAW GROUP, P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 232-3128
Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
dpark@moonlawgroup.com
jlee@moonlawgroup.com
INWOOD RESTAURANT: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Franklyn Rodriguez, Elizabeth Guzman, Martin Mora, Eulogio Guerra,
Florencio Jimenez, and Wendy Alvarez, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated v. Inwood Restaurant Corp.
d/b/a La Nueva Espana, Franco Doe, and Buba Doe, Case No.
1:24-cv-09473 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 12, 2024) seeks to recover
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit seeks to recover compensation for unpaid wages for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs further seek to prosecute his FLSA claims as a
collective action on behalf of a collective group of persons
defined as:
"All persons who are or were formerly employed by the Defendants
in the United States at any time since December 11, 2021, to the
entry of judgment in this case, as waitress, cashier, food
preparer, assistant chef and chef, and who were not paid
statutory minimum wages and/or overtime compensation at rates at
least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of pay for hours
worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, and/or spread-of-
hours premium pay for hours worked a shift lasting in excess of
ten hours from start to finish."
The Defendant operates a restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
IRON CUMBERLAND: Gibel Bid to Conduct On-Site Visits Deferred
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON GIBEL, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. IRON CUMBERLAND, LLC
(d/b/a "IRON SENERGY"), Case No. 2:23-cv-02050-WSH-MPK (W.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Maureen Kelly entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's request to conduct on-site visits to the
Cumberland Mine, as well as studies or analysis by any rebuttal
expert retained by Defendant, are deferred until after the
Court
resolves the Plaintiff's class certification motion.
-- In opposing class certification, the Defendant will not argue
that
the class certification should be denied based on purported
inabilities, difficulties, inefficiencies, or uncertainties in
quantifying class members' alleged Pre-and Post-Shift
Activities,
but Defendant reserves the right to argue any facts relevant to
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under Fed. R.
Civ.
23 and extend case law.
Iron Senergy is a privately owned, independent energy company.
The Defendant is
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dPLbef at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Timothy Conboy, Esq.
CONBOY LAW, LLC
733 Washington Road, Suite 201
Pittsburgh, PA 15228
Telephone: (412) 343-9060
Facsimile: (412) 343-9062
E-mail: tim@conboylaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kevin Colosimo, Esq.
Kyle D. Johmson, Esq.
Haley S. Crum, Esq.
FROST BROWN TOOD LLP
501 Grant Street, Suite 800
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 513-4300
JAF COMMUNICATIONS: Belendez-Desha Wins Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PILAR BELENDEZ-DESHA, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. JAF
COMMUNICATIONS, INC. d/b/a The Messenger, Case No.
1:24-cv-00741-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett
entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.
The Court appoints Pilar Belendez-Desha as class representative and
Raisner Roupinian LLP as class counsel.
The Court approves Plaintiff's class notice, which shall be mailed
by first class mail by class counsel to the individuals identified
as potential class members.
The Plaintiff has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
common issues of fact and law predominate in the asserted claims,
and that a class action is the superior procedural mechanism for
these claims.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of former employees of
the Defendant who were terminated with 30 days of Jan. 31, 2024.
This is a proposed class action for alleged violations of the
federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988,
29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-09 (the "federal WARN Act"), and its New York
State counterpart, New York Labor Law ("NYLL").
JAF is a telecommunications company that provides fiber optics,
IPTV, electrical design, and construction services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U9NuFD at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAXKELLY INC: Faces Miller Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
GABRIELLA MILLER, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. JAXKELLY, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02303-JLS-AHG (S.D.
Cal., Dec. 11, 2024) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
The suit says that the Defendant engages in unsolicited text
messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have
opted out of Defendant's text messages. The Defendant also engages
in automated text message marketing to consumers' cell phones, even
after consumers have requested to opt out of Defendant's marketing.
Specifically, on Nov. 13, 2021, the Plaintiff opted into
Defendant's marketing text messages by texting the Defendant with
the word "SUBSCRIBE76545" from the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 3637 to the Defendant's telephone number (855)
855-6583.
Thereafter, the Plaintiff began to receive marketing text messages
to the 3637 Number from Defendant. Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2023,
the Plaintiff requested that the Defendant stop sending marketing
text messages to the 3637 Number by texting the word "Stop" to
Defendant's telephone number (855) 855-6583. However, the Defendant
ignored Plaintiff's opt-out request, and continued to send
marketing text messages to the 3637 Number, the suit alleges.
Through this action, the 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 thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory
damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any
other available legal or equitable remedies.
The Plaintiff is the regular user of the 3637 Number. The Plaintiff
utilizes the cellular telephone number that received the
Defendant's calls for personal purposes and the number is the
Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of
reaching the Plaintiff at home.
The Defendant sells handcrafted jewelry and candles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
IJH LAW
1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250
Orange, CA 92868
Telephone: (657) 200-1403
E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com
JOHN FELTS: Winnett Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Winnett v. Felts, et al.,
Case No. 4:24-cv-01032-DPM (E.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order certifying Rule 23 class action.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HRfJj3 at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces McNamara Suit Over Cash Sweep Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
NANCY MCNAMARA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, and
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-09448 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
11, 2024) is a case arising out of Defendants' cash sweep program,
whereby J.P. Morgan Securities, while acting as an agent and
fiduciary, automatically "sweeps" uninvested cash balances from
customers into low interest-bearing bank accounts at its affiliated
bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank.
Through the Cash Sweep Program engineered by J.P. Morgan, the
Defendants have reaped massive profits for themselves at the
expense of their customers. Rising interest rates should have
presented an opportunity for JPMS customers to earn more on their
uninvested cash. However, the customers did not receive appropriate
returns consistent with Defendants' fiduciary duties and
contractual obligations as their cash is transferred to deposit
accounts that did not pay interest rates consistent with
Defendants’ fiduciary duties and contractual obligations, says
the suit.
By improperly keeping the interest rates paid on cash sweep
accounts low and funneling the interest profit to its affiliate
bank, unfortunately, it is Defendants and not their customers that
continue to derive the benefits from the Cash Sweep Program. The
Defendants have allegedly concealed the substantial benefits they
extracted by negotiating one-sided transactions with their
affiliate, and misled investors into believing the conflict was
absolved through JPMS's "waiver" of fees, when in reality, those
fees were passed onto its affiliated bank, and not their customers,
the suit added.
Between February 2022 and March 2024, the Plaintiff maintained an
account with JPMS in which cash was held over the course of the
life of the account, and cash balances were automatically "swept"
into a low interest-bearing bank account at JPMCB pursuant to J.P.
Morgan's Cash Sweep Program.
JPMorgan is a financial services firm based in the United States of
America with operations worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq.
Jarett N. Sena, Esq.
Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
Daniel R. Schwartz, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Ave., Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
bbernstein@dicellolevitt.com
jsena@dicellolevitt.com
briano@dicellolevitt.com
stevej@dicellolevitt.com
alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
dschwartz@dicellolevitt.com
LAGOS INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Gomberg Says
------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GOMBERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lagos, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-06606 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 11,
2024) is an action 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.
On Nov. 20, 2024, while searching on Google for local stores with a
rich selection of jewelry intricate styles for men, the Plaintiff
discovered the Defendant's website, Lagos.com, which offered a
selection of premium jewelry for men and women. However, he
encountered several accessibility issues on the website, including
multiple pop-ups, inaccessible navigation menus, and an incorrect
focus order.
Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus
denied the benefit of purchasing men's jewelry, which the Plaintiff
wished to book through the Website, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff intends to frequent Defendant's physical location at
1735 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 once the accessibility
barriers are removed.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Gomberg is and has been, a resident of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. He is a blind, visually-impaired person and is
therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA.
Lagos offers bracelets, earrings, necklaces, rings, watch bands and
caviar jewelry for men and women.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Glanzberg, Esq.
Robert Tobia, Esq.
GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C.
123 South Broad Street Suite 1640,
Philadelphia, PA 19109
Telephone: (215) 981-5400
E-mail: DGlanzberg@aol.com
robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com
LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Bid to Reopen Class Discovery Denied in Watson
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Watson et al., v. Lexus of
Manhattan, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna
Schofield entered an order denying the Defendant's request to
reopen discovery because it is untimely.
-- The Discovery closed two (2) years ago and the Defendant has
not
shown good cause to reopen discovery just weeks before trial.
-- The Defendant's request that Plaintiffs be required to name a
new
class representative is denied because Defendant has not
introduced evidence that warrants reconsideration of the prior
class certification decision on September 29, 2022, and
Plaintiff
Espinal still appears to be a proper class representative.
-- The Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied because
Plaintiffs
have not shown that Defendant's actions were entirely without
merit and improper.
Lexus of Manhattan provides a vast selection of new and used
vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UfwrLN at no extra
charge.[CC]
LHNH LAVISTA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v.
LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.),
the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order revising the class
certification briefing schedule as follows:
-- The Plaintiffs' motion for class Jan. 31, 2025
certification is due on:
-- The Defendants' response to the motion is due within 21 days of
the filing of the class certification motion:
-- The Plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' response is due within
seven
days of the filing of said response.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PDWxxV at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIBERTY FIRST: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, McMurtry Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN MCMURTRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIBERTY FIRST CREDIT UNION, Case No. 4:24-cv-03227 (D.
Neb., Dec. 11, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to implement
reasonable and industry standard data security practices to
properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it
had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
On Sept. 17, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a ransomware
attack on its system. A wide variety of PII was implicated in the
breach, including potentially: names, addresses, and Social
Security numbers.
The breadth of data compromised in the Data Breach makes the
information particularly valuable to thieves and leaves the
Defendant's customers especially vulnerable to identity theft, tax
fraud, medical fraud, credit and bank fraud, and more, the lawsuit
says.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of the Defendant's negligent conduct since the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained is now in the hands of data
thieves.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into
the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, the suit asserts.
The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered numerous actual and
concrete injuries and damage due to Defendant's alleged
unreasonable and inadequate data security practices.
Liberty is a credit union that offers personal loans, mortgages,
credit cards, rewards checking, savings, and auto loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gyani Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lululemon Athletica Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itsef from the Gyani class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On July 12, 2024, lululemon and its subsidiary, lululemon usa inc.,
were named as defendants in a putative consumer class action (Gyani
v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., et al., No. 1:24-cv-22651-BB) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The complaint asserts claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment based on statements
by the Company relating to the sustainability and environmental
impact of the Company's products and actions during the period
October 28, 2020 to present.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, as well as non-monetary
relief such as an injunction to end the alleged unlawful practices.
The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.
Lululemon Athletica offers clothing, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, pants, jeans, activewear, coats,
dresses, pajamas, shoes, and more.[BN]
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Patel Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lululemon Athletica Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Patel securities class suit in
for the Southern District of New York.
On August 8, 2024, lululemon athletica inc. and certain officers of
the Company were named as defendants in a purported securities
class action (Patel v. Lululemon Athletica Inc., et al., No.
1:24-cv-06033) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegedly false and misleading public statements and omissions by
Defendants during the period December 7, 2023 to July 24, 2024
relating to lululemon's business, product offerings, and inventory
allocation that Plaintiff alleges artificially inflated the
Company's stock price.
The complaint currently seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The Company intends to defend the action vigorously.
Lululemon Athletica offers clothing, and accessories for sale
including, but not limited to, pants, jeans, activewear, coats,
dresses, pajamas, shoes, and more.[BN]
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Gyani Seeks to Modify Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDEEP GYANI, ABBY UTAL,
HECTOR ACOSTA, JULEZ BLAKE, DEBORAH TOMAZ, ROYA SAYIED, PAULA
MARTINEZ, and ALEXANDRIA REESE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC. and
LULULEMON USA INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-22651-BB (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Scheduling
Order to extend the deadline for the parties to exchange:
(1) expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class
certification from Dec. 23, 2024, to March 24, 2025; and
(2) rebuttal expert witness summaries or reports on issues of
class
certification from Jan. 7, 2025, to Apr. 7, 2025.
The Plaintiff Gyani filed the initial Complaint in this matter on
July 12, 2024.
The Plaintiff Gyani, together with the other Plaintiffs, filed a
First Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC) on Sept. 16, 2024.
The FAC generally alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
"greenwashing" marketing campaign that misleadingly represented
that Lululemon's business practices, actions, and products
positively contribute to the restoration of the environment and a
healthier planet when, in reality, Lululemon's practices are
causing significant damage to the environment, which is only on
track to get worse, the lawsuit says.
Lululemon is a Canadian-American multinational premium athletic
apparel retailer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ynKgaS at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
EGGNATZ | PASCUCCI
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 889-3359
Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
E-mail: JEggnatz@JusticeEarned.com
MPascucci@JusticeEarned.com
SGizzie@JusticeEarned.com
- and -
Chris Gold, Esq.
GOLD LAW, PA
350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: (561) 789-4413
E-mail: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com
M LANDMAN ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Property's Architectural Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. M LANDMAN ENTERPRISES, LLC; and BARZOLA DGA,
INC d/b/a BARZOLA RESTAURANT, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24827
(S.D. Fla., December 10, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
M Landman Enterprises owns, operates, and oversees the commercial
property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses located in Miami Dade County, Florida.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has encountered
architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the
subject commercial property and businesses located within the
Defendants' property. The barriers to access at the commercial
property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished
Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have
endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. A list of the
violations that Plaintiff encountered during his visit to the
commercial property are related to parking and exterior accessible
route, access to goods and services, and public restrooms, says the
suit.
Plaintiff Brito is an individual with disabilities as defined by
and pursuant to the ADA. He is, among other things, a paraplegic
(paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and is therefore
substantially limited in major life activities due to his
impairment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
MANHATTAN LUXURY: Bid to Reopen Class Discovery Denied in Greene
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Greene v. Manhattan Luxury
Automobiles, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01588-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Lorna Schofield entered an order denying the Defendant's
request to reopen discovery because it is untimely.
-- The Discovery closed two (2) years ago and the Defendant has
not
shown good cause to reopen discovery just weeks before trial.
-- The Defendant's request that Plaintiffs be required to name a
new
class representative is denied because Defendant has not
introduced evidence that warrants reconsideration of the prior
class certification decision on September 29, 2022, and
Plaintiff
Espinal still appears to be a proper class representative.
-- The Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied because
Plaintiffs
have not shown that Defendant's actions were entirely without
merit and improper.
Manhattan Luxury was founded in 1994. The Company's line of
business includes the retail sale of new and used automobiles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JKBEAP at no extra
charge.[CC]
MARQETA INC: Faces Ford Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MARQETA, INC., SIMON KHALAF and MICHAEL MILOTICH, Case
No. 4:24-cv-08892 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 10, 2024) is a federa1
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Marqeta securities between May 7, 2024 and Nov.
4, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The suit says that the Defendants provided investors with material
information concerning Marqeta's gross profit and EBITDA guidance
for the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements concerned growth
in new business bookings and onboarding timelines ahead of their
full-year plan in addition to making significant operational
improvements and confidence in driving growth of its newer
customers and embedded finance use cases.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
related to Marqeta's onboarding strategy, including program
management and compliance services in anticipation of the
heightened regulatory environment in order to launch and ramp up
new customers.
The truth emerged on Nov. 4, 2024, Marqeta issued a press release
announcing negative third quarter 2024 results. During the
corresponding earnings call, the Defendants disclosed that an
increased operational burden and heightened regulatory changes
impacted both Marqeta's and its customers' onboarding and
compliance teams. The incremental scrutiny and rigor had therefore
translated into significant onboarding delays for new customers. As
a result, Marqeta lowered its outlook for the full year 2025.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Marqeta's
revelations. The price of Marqeta's stock declined from $5.95 per
share on Nov. 4, 2024 to $3.42 per share on Nov. 5, 2024.
The Plaintiff purchased Marqeta common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the Defendants' fraud.
Marqeta, Inc. operates a cloud-based open application programming
interface platform that delivers card issuing and transaction
processing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 373-1671
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend CCMGERP Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
A purported shareholder filed a substantially similar action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
October 7, 2024 against the same defendants and a former Chief
Operating Officer of the Company, in a case entitled City of Cape
Coral Municipal General Employees Retirement Plan v. Methode
Electronics, Inc., et al.
The second securities class action was filed on behalf of a broader
putative class of purchasers of Company common stock between
December 2, 2021 and March 6, 2024.
The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against
the Stockholder Actions.
Methode designs, manufactures, and produces custom engineered
solutions and products for user interfaces, LED lighting systems,
and power distribution and sensor applications.[BN]
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Continues to Defend Salem Class Suit in Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend the Salem class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On August 26, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Company common stock between June 23, 2022 and March
6, 2024, inclusive, entitled Marie Salem v. Methode Electronics,
Inc. et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company, a former Chief Executive
Officer, President and director of the Company and a former Chief
Financial Officer of the Company.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false and/or misleading statements relating to the Company's
business, operations and prospects, including in respect of the
Company's transition to production of more specialized components
for manufacturers of electric vehicles and the Company's operations
at its facility in Monterrey, Mexico, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified money damages
along with equitable relief and costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.
The Company disagrees with and intends to vigorously defend against
the Stockholder Action.
Methode designs, manufactures, and produces custom engineered
solutions and products for user interfaces, LED lighting systems,
and power distribution and sensor applications.[BN]
MIISTA INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Miista, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-09478 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
12, 2024) alleges that Miista failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://www.miista.com, 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 Miista provides to their non-disabled customers through
the website. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says
the suit.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision;
others have no vision.
Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
Miista.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Miista.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Brooklyn, NY 11234
2377 56th Dr.
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
MODERN WALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. MODERN WALL ART, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09462 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 11, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://modernwallarts.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
Nov. 23, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Crescent Decor Eid Moon
Tree Hilal and to view the information on the Website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a
shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full
and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public
and made available to the public, the lawsuit says.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to
contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Mr. Murphy is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
Modern Wall offers furniture and home decor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
MONTEFIORE HEALTH: Guerrero Seeks Final OK of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY RAMIREZ CRUZ
GUERRERO and CRISTOPHER ISMAEL RAMIREZ MOREL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. MONTEFIORE HEALTH
SYSTEM, INC. and CSS BUILDING SOLUTIONS INC., Case No.
1:22-cv-09194-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
before the Hon. Katharine H. Parker, for an order pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor
Standards Act granting final approval of the Parties' settlement on
a class and collective action basis.
Montefiore consists of eleven hospitals, 4 of which are part of the
academic medical center.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OF4ihP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Louis Pechman, Esq.
Vivianna Morales, Esq.
PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 583-9500
E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
morales@pechmanlaw.com
NORTHFIELD HOLDING: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Merson Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA LYNN MERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHFIELD HOLDING CORP. d/b/a
FLORIDA WINDOW & DOOR, Defendant, Case No. 6:24-cv-02241 (M.D.
Fla., December 10, 2024) is a putative class action against the
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant harassed Plaintiff and
members of the Class with prerecorded robocalls, the purpose of
which was to promote and advertise the commercial availability of
Defendant's goods and services. The Plaintiff never signed any type
of authorization permitting or allowing the placement of
prerecorded sales or marketing calls, says the suit.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and
statutory damages to put an end to Defendant's unlawful conduct
which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm
that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members,
says the suit.
Northfield Holding Corp. engages in the supply and installation of
windows and doors, serving residential and commercial clients in
the South Florida area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Class Cert Filing Extended to Sept. 15, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANA TURNER, DANIEL SMITH,
and AARON YOUSHEI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 4:22-cv-05827-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Donna Ryu entered an order extending the class certification
schedule as follows:
Event Proposed
Deadline
Class certification expert disclosure June 23, 2025
deadline
Class certification rebuttal expert Aug. 4, 2025
disclosure deadline:
Deadline to file motion for class Sept. 15, 2025
certification and Daubert motions
related to class certification experts:
Deadline to file opposition to class Oct. 27, 2025
Certification motion/Daubert motions:
Deadline to file reply re class Nov. 17, 2025
certification motion/Daubert motions:
Hearing on motion for class Jan. 8, 2026
certification and related Daubert
motions:
Nuance is an American multinational computer software technology
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nk7Rqg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
John Aaron Lawson, Esq.
Theo Benjamin, Esq.
Emily Penkowski Perez, Esq.
EDELSON PC
150 California Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 212-9300
Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
alawson@edelson.com
tbenjamin@edelson.com
epenkowski@edelson.com
- and -
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
David C. Layden, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 Flower Street Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
dlayden@jenner.com
ODIN NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Odin New York, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09528 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec 13, 2024) alleges that Odin failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://odinnewyork.com, 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, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Thus, Odin New York excludes the blind and visually impaired from
the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy
that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace
and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent
years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly
prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and
visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a
variety of services, says the suit.
Odinnewyork.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Odin New
York. Yet, Odinnewyork.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW PLLC
Flushing, NY 11367
14441 70th Road
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
OP PHARMACY: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Cobb Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON COBB, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. OP PHARMACY, LLC d/b/a ONEPOINT PATIENT CARE, LLC, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00717-CHB (W.D. Ky., Dec. 10, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of its clients' patients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
-- which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual
understanding that the Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to the Data Breach, the suit avers.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, addresses, residence
information, and Social Security numbers and medical information,
which is protected health information as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and approximately
795,000 Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including
invasion of privacy; theft of their Private Information; lost time
and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the
actual consequences of the Data Breach; actual misuse of their
Private Information consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts,
and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to
their Private Information.
Plaintiff Cobb received the Notice Letter, by mail, directly from
the Defendant, dated Oct. 23, 2024. According to the Notice Letter,
Plaintiff's Private Information was improperly accessed and
obtained by unauthorized third parties, including her name,
address, residence information, medical record number, diagnosis
and prescription information.
The Defendant is a hospice-dedicated pharmacy that provides
healthcare and pharmaceutical services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
PAPAYA GAMING: Uses Bots in Mobile Games, Isernia Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
JANE BARCELO and CHRISTINA ISERNIA, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals v. PAPAYA GAMING LTD. and
PAPAYA GAMING, INC., Case No. 24STCV32626 (Cal. Super., Dec. 10,
2024) alleges that the Defendants, through their website,
www.papaya.com, falsely advertised and promoted their mobile games
as "fair game for everyone" when, in fact, Plaintiffs contend the
games are rigged by Defendants through the use of computer
algorithms or "bots" that are masquerading as human players.
According to the complaint, the use of the "bots" transforms a
legal game of human skill into an illegal game of chance or
gambling in which Papaya's unknowing players had little-to-no
influence on the outcome. The Defendants represent that they do not
have a financial interest in the outcome of their tournaments, and
they attract players to pay fees to enter gaming tournaments hosted
on
Defendants' platforms, the suit says.
The Plaintiffs assert that, by deploying "bots" in games where
players' money is on the line and then controlling when those
"bots" win or lose, the Defendants are effectively choosing how
much revenue to generate for themselves through each game played.
In essence, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants ran an illegal
gambling operation where the outcome was rigged in Defendants'
favor.
The complaint asserts consumer protection claims under the Lanham
Act, as well as California and New York law, to hold the Defendants
accountable for their false and misleading advertising, upon which
Plaintiffs and Class Members relied and suffered actual harm.
Ms. Barcelo played Papaya's Solitaire Cash, 21 Cash, Bubble Cash,
and/or Bingo Cash on her mobile phone. Ms. Barcelo estimates that
she spent more than $150 dollars playing on Papaya's gaming
platforms. Ms. Barcelo was attracted to Papaya's games based on the
misrepresentation that she would be competing against real humans,
in real time.
Papaya is advertised as an online gaming platform, where users
compete in games of skill against other human users for money.
Papaya purports to match players in accord with their skill level
for competitive play.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
PATTERSON COS: Continues to Defend Mehring Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Patterson Cos. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending November 2, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 5, 2024, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Mehring class suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On May 23, 2024, Plaintiff Monica Mehring and Mehring Family
Dentistry (together, "Plaintiffs") filed a class action complaint
against Patterson Companies Inc. "doing business as Patterson
Dental," UnitedHealth Group and its subsidiaries Change Healthcare
and Optum Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") in a case captioned
Dr. Monica Mehring et al. v. Patterson Companies, Inc. et al., Case
No. 4:24-cv-3147 (N.D. Cal. May 23, 2024) (the "Class Action
Complaint").
The Class Action Complaint alleges that as a result of Defendants'
failure to implement robust cybersecurity controls, "a group of
cybercriminals were able to infiltrate Defendants' computer
networks and steal for ransom confidential health data and source
code among other things ('Data Breach')."
Notwithstanding the Class Action Complaint's generic reference to
"Defendants," Plaintiffs describe the Data Breach as UnitedHealth
Group's February 21, 2024 discovery that a suspected nation-state
associated cyber security threat actor had gained access to some of
the Change Healthcare information technology systems.
Plaintiffs allege that as a direct result of the Data Breach, they
were unable to submit claims through Patterson-supplied Eaglesoft
software and, to date, have been unable to receive payments for
claims submitted on February 20, 2024.
While Plaintiffs assert that they use Eaglesoft to access Change
Healthcare and Optum software to "integrate processing,
prescriptions, billing and insurance," the Class Action Complaint
does not allege that Eaglesoft or any of Patterson's IT systems or
computer networks were accessed by any threat actor or were
otherwise the subject of the alleged Data Breach.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Plaintiffs assert the following
causes of action against all Defendants: negligence; "negligent
interference with prospective economic advantage;" negligence per
se; breach of implied contract; "breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing;" and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs purport to
bring each claim on behalf of a nationwide class defined as: (i)
"[a]ll healthcare providers in the United States whose use of
Change Healthcare's and Optum's services were disrupted by the
[D]ata [B]reach occurring in February 2024"; and (ii) "[a]ll
healthcare providers in the United States whose use of Patterson
Dental's Eaglesoft's services were disrupted by the [D]ata [B]reach
occurring in February 2024."
Plaintiffs separately seek to certify a Delaware statewide class
defined as: (i) "[a]ll healthcare providers in the state of
Delaware whose use of Change Healthcare's and Optum's services were
disrupted by the [D]ata [B]reach occurring in February 2024"; and
(ii) "[a]ll healthcare providers in the state of Delaware whose use
of Patterson Dental's Eaglesoft's services were disrupted by the
[D]ata [B]reach occurring in February 2024." Although the Class
Action Complaint is the only known complaint related to the Data
Breach that names Patterson as a defendant, similar complaints were
filed in other jurisdictions against defendants UnitedHealth Group,
Change Healthcare and Optum.
Pursuant to an order dated June 7, 2024, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") transferred all such actions,
including the Class Action Complaint, to the District of Minnesota
for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The deadline for Lead Plaintiffs' counsel to file a consolidated
MDL complaint is January 15, 2025.
The Company is vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation.
Patterson Companies, Inc. distributes and sells dental and animal
health products in the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Canada. It operates through Dental and Animal Health segments. The
company was formerly known as Patterson Dental Company and changed
its name to Patterson Companies, Inc. in June 2004. Patterson
Companies, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is headquartered in St.
Paul, Minnesota.
PELICAN COVE: Bid for Class Certification Extended to Feb. 4, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Braswell v. Pelican Cove
Grill, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00429 (S.D. Miss., Filed July 22,
2024), the Hon. Judge Henry T. Wingate entered an order on motion
for extension of time to file:
-- The deadline for motions to join parties, motions to amend the
pleadings, and any motion for class certification is extended
to
Feb. 4, 2025.
-- No further written order shall issue.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment
Discrimination.[CC]
PELICAN COVE: Braswell Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH BRASWELL and others
similarly situated v. PELICAN COVE GRILL, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00429-HTW-ASH (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting motion to extend the deadline to file
motions to amend and motions for class certification be extended to
February 4, 2025.
1. The CMO sets Dec. 16, 2024, as the deadline to file motions
to
amend or join parties, as well as motions for class
certification.
2. Counsel for the parties have conferred and, due to a variety
of
circumstances, concluded that they are not currently in a
position to act by the deadline.
3. Specifically, the Plaintiff expects to file either a motion
to
amend, a motion for class certification, or both, but has not
yet received the discovery necessary to decide which course
to
take
4. Pursuant to Rule 16(b)(4) and Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules
of
Civil Procedure, these deadlines may be modified upon a
showing
of good cause.
5. The parties have been diligent and the extension is not
sought
for the purposes of delay.
6. This is the first extension of any deadlines sought in this
case.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iwYpE0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Dillard, Esq.
JOEL F. DILLARD, P.A.
775 N. Congress St.
Jackson MS 39202
Telephone: (601) 509-1372
E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com
PERRY'S RESTAURANTS: Court Certifies Colorado Class in Green Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LANCE GREEN, and ANDERSON
KHALID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PERRY'S RESTAURANTS LTD, and PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE OF
COLORADO, LLC, collectively d/b/a PERRY'S STEAKHOUSE AND GRILLE,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00023-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William
Martinez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' opposed motion
for class certification Pursuant to Rule 23. The Court certifies a
Colorado Class with the following definition:
"All of Defendants' current and former employees who worked as
servers in at least one week in Colorado within the three years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit and who were paid a
subminimum hourly wage pursuant to Colorado Wage Law."
At this juncture, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have
adequately shown that they were, on the whole, prohibited from
taking legally-mandated breaks and were not compensated for any
missed breaks. Based on the evidence currently before the Court, it
finds that this common question predominates Plaintiffs' meal break
and rest periods subclaim
Anderson Khalid worked as a server at the Perry's Steakhouse and
Grille location in Lone Tree, Colorado from February 2017 to
January 2021.
Perry's Restaurants provides grilled food processing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SrKrM6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHARM-SAVE INC: Savidge Must File Class Cert by Jan. 10, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA K. SAVIDGE, et al.,
v. PHARM-SAVE INC., d/b/a NEIL MEDICAL GROUP, et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-00186-CHB-RSE (W.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Claria Horn Boom
entered an order granting agreed order for extension of time:
-- The Plaintiffs shall have up to and including Dec. 27, 2024, to
file their responses to Defendant's motion for partial summary
judgment, and defendant's motion to alter class certification.
-- Pharm-Save shall have until Jan. 10, 2025, to file its reply to
Plaintiffs' responses.
Pharm-Save was founded in 1984. The Company's line of business
includes wholesale distribution of prescription and proprietary
drugs and toiletries.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nlAxHn at no extra
charge.[CC]
PTC SOLUTIONS: Davis Wins FLSA Conditional Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKAL DAVIS on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. PTC SOLUTIONS LLC and
MAGNETIC SOUTH OF ANDERSON LLC dba MAGNETIC SOUTH BREWERY, Case No.
8:24-cv-04098-DCC (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Donald Coggins, Jr.
entered an order granting the consent motion for conditional class
certification (FLSA) and to authorize notice to putative class
members:
The action is conditionally certified as a collective action for
actual damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), and the class shall be defined as
follows:
"All individuals who were employed by MSB at any time within
the
three years prior to joining this lawsuit, who were paid a
direct,
or hourly, rate less than the minimum wage of Seven and 25/100
dollars ($7.25) per hour and participated in a tip pool created
by
MSB.
Class Counsel will handle distribution of the various notices
pursuant to this Order.
The putative class is composed of 42 individuals. Of those,
three
individuals have filed a Consent to Join Lawsuit.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EJSjjv at no extra
charge.[CC]
PTC SOLUTIONS: Parties Seek FLSA Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKAL DAVIS on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. PTC SOLUTIONS LLC and
MAGNETIC SOUTH OF ANDERSON LLC dba MAGNETIC SOUTH BREWERY, Case No.
8:24-cv-04098-DCC (D.S.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an
order granting motion for conditional class certification (FLSA)
and to authorize notice to putative class members:
The Parties request that the Court order the following:
1. Conditionally certify this matter as a collective action for
actual damages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
2. Define the class as follows:
"All individuals who were employed by MSB at any time within
the
three years prior to joining this lawsuit, who were paid a
direct, or hourly, rate less than the minimum wage of Seven
and
25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour and participated in a tip
pool
created by MSB."
3. The Notice attached to this Order as Exhibit 1 is appropriate
to
provide notice to the Remaining Putative Members, via U.S.
Mail,
and for allowing Remaining Putative Members to opt-in, or
join,
the class. The mailing envelope shall have a return address
as
follows:
Magnetic South Brewery Collective (Class) Action
Lawsuit
Important Notice of Your Legal Rights
PLEASE OPEN & READ
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CtjLBc at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: (843) 579-7373
E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
The Defendants is represented by:
Thomas L. Stephenson, Esq.
STEPHENSON & MURPHY, LLC
207 Whitsett St.
Greenville, SC 29601
Telephone: (864) 370-9400
E-mail: tom@stephensonmurphy.com
RACKSON RESTAURANTS: Class Certification Order Entered in Field
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONAHUE FIELDS, v. RACKSON
RESTAURANTS, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09265-DEH-BCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered a class certification order as
follows:
-- All pretrial motions and applications, including those related
to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or
for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23)
must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Parties
and counsel are cautioned:
-- It is Judge Moses's practice to hold all court proceedings in
person absent good cause to hold a particular proceeding
remotely.
-- Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must
be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set
by
the Court.
-- Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil
Rule
37.2 and Moses Ind. Prac. section 2(b).
-- For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion
conferences
are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe
that
an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for
a
motion or narrow the issues.
Rackson operates some of the top Burger King franchises in the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United State
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 13, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NGTu7L at no extra
charge.[CC]
RAM PAYMENT: Bid for Class Certification Adjourned to Feb. 3, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANCES ANTICO, THE
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUNE GERMINARIO; AGNES STEFANELLI;
CLAUDE Z. DAVILA; WAYNE STRELECKI; MARIUS CULDA; DAWN CLUDA; RAID
ASSAF; ROBERT ROVINSKY, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF SUSAN ROVINSKY;
GREG RUSIN; PAMELA KURT AND JEFFREY ROTHSTEIN ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER CLASS ACTION MEMBERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
v. RAM PAYMENT, L.L.C. T/A RELIANT ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-12130-CPO-MJS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P.
O'Hearn entered an order adjourning the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification to Feb. 3, 2025.
The Court further entered an order that:
-- Opposition papers to the motion are to be filed no later than
Jan.
21, 2025, and reply papers are to be filed no later than Feb.
3,
2025.
-- A copy of the Order shall be deemed served by the uploading of
the Order on Pacer.
Ram Payment is a financial services company, specializing in
payment processing solutions.
The Defendants include RAM AMERICA, INC.; RELIANT ACCOUNT
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C. (CALIFORNIA); RELIANT ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.
(TENNESSEE); ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; RELIANT ACCOUNT
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, L.L.C.; GS ASSOCIATED HOLDINGS, L.L.C. A/K/A GS
HOLDINGS, L.L.C.(CALIFORNIA).; GS ASSOCIATED HOLDINGS L.L.C. A/K/A;
GS HOLDINGS, L.L.C. (ARIZONA); WST MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.; AUSTIN CO.
L.L.C.; RELIANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, L.L.C.; STEPHEN CHAYA; GREGORY
WINTERS, SCOTT AUSTIN, STEPHEN CHAYA TRUST AGREEMENT; RICHARD W.
TORKELSON; TERESA DODSON; SADM HOLDINGS, INC.; WILLIAM ERGAS;
WILLIAM ERGAS, SDIRA; ACTIVE DEBT SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. F/K/A ACTIVE
DEBT SOLUTIONS, INC. D/B/A GUARDIAN LEGAL CENTER; PARALEGAL SUPPORT
GROUP, L.L.C. F/K/A PARALEGAL
STAFF SUPPORT, L.L.C.; JOHN DOE(S) 1-100, SAID NAME OF JOHN DOE(S)
BEING FICTITIOUS.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hAVy5F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shaji M. Eapen, Esq.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS.
2025 Lincoln Hwy, Suite 200
Edison, NJ 08817
Telephone: (732) 248-4200
Facsimile: (732) 248-2355
E-mail: eapen@methwerb.com
RDO EQUIPMENT: Munoz Seeks Initial OK of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON MUNOZ on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, v. RDO EQUIPMENT CO.; and DOES 1- 100, Case No.
1:23-cv-00979-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
(1) Provisionally certifying the Class for settlement purposes
only;
(2) Preliminarily approving the class action settlement embodied
in
the Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement;
(3) Approving the Notice of Settlement of Class Action and
Hearing
Date and the plan for distribution of the notice;
(4) Appointing the Settlement Administrator; and
(5) Scheduling a Final Approval Hearing.
The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendant RDO Equipment
Co. Through their Second Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege
that RDO failed to pay all wages owed, failed to provide lawful
meal and rest periods, failed to adopt a compliant sick pay/paid
time off policy, failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failed to pay all wages due at the termination of
employment, failed to reimburse for all business expenses, violated
the Unfair Competition Law, and violated the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").
-- Summary of Settlement
a. The Class and Subclasses
The Class is comprised of:
"All current and former non-exempt, hourly employees who
were
employed by RDO in California at any time from April 25,
2019,
through Nov. 11, 2024." There are approximately 643
individuals
who fall within this Class definition.
b. Settlement Terms
The Defendant shall pay a GSA of $2,000,000 to fully and
finally settle this matter.
No portion of the MSA will revert to Defendant for any
reason.
The Defendant's employer payroll taxes will be paid by
Defendant separate and apart from the GSA. Deductions from
the
GSA will be made subject to the Court's approval.
RDO is a construction, agricultural, landscape, utility, recycling,
and forestry equipment supplier.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iWRnpg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Mara, Esq.
Jill Vecchi, Esq.
MARA LAW FIRM, PC
2650 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 302
San Diego, CA 92108
Telephone: (619) 234-2833
Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
E-mail: dmara@maralawfirm.com
jvecchi@maralawfirm.com
- and -
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
William Wilkinson, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
wwilkinson@justicelawcorp.com
ROUX BROTHERS: Bequette Seeks to Disseminate Notice
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY C. BEQUETTE, V. ROUX
BROTHERS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00049-DCB-ASH (S.D. Miss.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1) authorizing dissemination of the suggested notice to
potential
members of this collective action;
2) directing discovery of the names, addresses and telephone
numbers of the potential class members in order to
efficiently
distribute the suggested notice; and
3) awarding the Plaintiff such other and further relief to which
they and other similarly situated employees may be justly
entitled.
The Plaintiff contend that she has met the burden for the issuance
of court-approved notice. Therefore, notice should be sent to all
waitstaff, currently employed or formerly employed, by Defendants
as set forth:
"All current and former employees of ROUX BROTHERS, LLC. d/b/a
Roux
61 Restaurant, who worked as a member of the waitstaff at any
time
between May 10, 2021, to the present, and who were not paid for
all
hours worked."
The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit to recover unpaid, underpaid, and
therefore, resulting overtime wages owed to her under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA").
The Defendant operates a restaurant.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L5NAUF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott F. Slover, Esq.
Natchez, MS 39121
Telephone: (601) 442-0075
E-mail: sfslover@gmail.com
SELENE FINANCE: Court Stays Argona Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Argona, et al., v. Selene
Finance, LP, Case No. 2:23-cv-14297 (S.D. Fla., Filed Sept. 27,
2023), the Hon. Judge Aileen M. Cannon entered an order granting
the Defendant's motion to stay.
-- Without concluding that the Defendant has a substantial
likelihood
of success on the merits, the Court nevertheless finds that a
discretionary, temporary stay is warranted in this case given
the
legal questions presented in Defendant's Petition, the minimal
prejudice to Plaintiff from a temporary stay, and the
substantial
discovery costs described by the Defendant.
-- This matter is accordingly stayed pending the Eleventh
Circuit's
resolution of Defendant Selene's pending Petition for
Permission
to Appeal Class Certification Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(f) and any subsequent appeal.
-- Defendant shall notify the Court of the Eleventh Circuit's
decision on the Petition within fourteen days of issuance, and
also separately file a status report with the Court no later
than
March 4, 2025.
The nature of suit states consumer credit.
Selene is a full-service residential mortgage loan servicer.[CC]
SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Violates Constitutional Rights, Meyer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENI MAE MEYER v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, a municipal corporation; TENNIS
WICK, in his individual and official capacities; TYRA HARRINGTON,
in her individual and official capacities; TODD HOFFMAN, in his
individual and official capacities; RYAN SHARP, in his individual
and official capacities; CHRIS MARTINEZ, in his individual and
official capacities; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
3:24-cv-09056 (N.D. Cal., Dec 13, 2024) seeks relief on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated for compensatory,
punitive, and nominal damages as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief to redress violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary
and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and each of them,
their agents and employees, from entering the private property of
the residents of the County of Sonoma without first securing a
warrant; unless Defendants, and each of them, their agents and
employees have the consent of the person in lawful possession of
the property, unless the property presents exigent circumstances,
unless the property is open field, or unless the search is
conducted from a public vantage point.
Ms. Meyer was an individual who either resided at 639 Duer Road,
Sebastopol, California 95472 ("the subject property"); or was, and
is, the owner of record of the subject property, and was, and is,
entitled to the full panoply of rights, privileges, and protections
of the United States Constitution, the California Constitution as
well as statutory and common law.
Mr. Wick is the Director of the County's Permit Resource Management
Department, a municipal agency within the County, which includes a
Code Enforcement Division that investigates and enforces local
building and zoning codes and regulations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric G. Young, Esq.
YOUNG LAW GROUP
2544 Cleveland Avenue, Suite 210
Santa Rosa, CA 95403
Telephone: (707) 343-0556
Facsimile: (707) 327-4360
E-mail: eyoung@younglawca.com
service@younglawca.com
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Seeks Denial of Certeza Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO CERTEZA,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-03020-DCN (D.S.C.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order denying class certification:
Southern Industries offers a variety of product lines including
replacement windows, walk-in showers, and walk-in baths, vinyl
siding, roofs, gutters, and gutter guard systems.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uPNUOK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Diane J. Zelmer, Esq.
BERENSON LLP
4495 Military Trial, Suite 203
Jupiter, FL 33458
Telephone: (561) 429-4496
Facsimile: (703) 991-2195
E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com
hcc@berensonllp.com
- and –
G. Wade Leach, III, Esq.
BURR & FORMAN LLP
1221 Main Street, Suite 1800
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 799-9800
E-mail: wleach@burr.com
SUI COMMUNITIES: Faces Nelson Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE NELSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUI COMMUNITIES, INC., GARY A. SCHIFFMAN, JOHN BANDINI
MCLAREN, KAREN J. DEARING, and FERNANDO CASTRO-CARATINI, Case No.
2:24-cv-13314-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., Dec. 12, 2024) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired SUI securities between February 28, 2019 and
September 24, 2024, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws.
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning SUI's accounting practices and internal control over
financial reporting. The Defendants' statements included, among
other things, confidence in SUI's brand, calling the Company
"industry leading" and repeatedly touting strong performance years.
Moreover, the Defendants consistently publicly reported financial
results, outlooks, and guidance to investors, all while engaging in
insider trading and concealing undisclosed loans and a $4 million
mortgage. This scheme compromised the independence of SUI's Board,
the Compensation Committee, and the Audit Committee, while calling
into question the integrity of the Company's governance, controls,
and financial disclosures, says the suit.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning where money was coming from, namely, undisclosed loans
and a $4 million mortgage. Importantly, the Defendants concealed
key information regarding Board members' insider trading, loans
taken on behalf of SUI by CEO Shiffman, and the mortgage signed by
CEO Shiffman on behalf of an entity called DH Bingham Farms LLC.
Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and
other shareholders to purchase SUI's securities at artificially
inflated prices, the suit added.
On Sept. 24, 2024, after market close, the truth emerged when Blue
Orca published a report detailing that SUI's CEO Shiffman received
an undisclosed $4 million mortgage from the family of independent
SUI Board member Brian Hermelin. Importantly, Blue Orca reports
that Hermelin who has been Chair of the Compensation Committee and
a member of the Audit Committee since 2015, is also a stepcousin of
CEO Shiffman and their families reportedly have a "close-knit
bond." Additionally, the report finds that CEO Shiffman has
borrowed money from Arthur Weiss, a SUI Board member and partner of
law firm that serves as SUI's General Counsel, according to the
Company's 10-K.
In a deposition conducted on March 28, 2023, CEO Shiffman
acknowledged that he and Weiss have "had a relationship over 35
years where we've loaned each other money.' Critically, Weiss paid
the doctor implicated in a life insurance fraud scheme $700,000 on
behalf of Shiffman. Blue Orca's report called into the question the
integrity of SUI's Board and the integrity of the Company's
governance, controls, and financial disclosures, the suit further
asserts.
The Plaintiff purchased SUI common stock at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation
of the Defendants' fraud.
SUI is a real estate investment company that focuses its
investments on manufactured housing communities, recreational
vehicle communities, and marinas. SUI was established in 1975 and
became a publicly owned corporation in December 1993. The
individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Shea, Esq.
SHEA LAW, PLLC
26100 American Dr., 2nd Floor
Southfield, MI 48034
Telephone.: (248) 354-0224
E-mail: david.shea@shealaw.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY'S
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 25, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS AYALA, et al., v.
TAPESTRY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered an order granting joint
motion to extend scheduling order deadlines as follows:
Deadline Current Date Amended
Date
Pl.'s Mot. to Compel Discovery Due: Dec. 20, 2024 Jan. 8,
2025
Defendant's Opposition Brief Due: Jan. 3, 2025 Jan. 22,
2025
Class Certification Discovery Jan. 17, 2025 Mar. 28,
2025
Closes:
Mandatory Settlement Conference: Jan. 23, 2025 Apr. 3,
2025
Settlement Briefs Due: Jan. 16, 2025 Mar. 27,
2025
Motion for Class Certification Due: Feb. 14, 2025 Apr. 25,
2025
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FRlldc at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAX RELIEF: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Kelly Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANA JESTINA KELLY, on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. TAX RELIEF HELPERS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32646
(Cal. Super., Dec. 11, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to
compensate the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees for all hours
worked because the Defendants had a policy and/or practice whereby
they required and/or pressured the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees to work under Defendants' control while off-the-clock,
including forcing or requiring the Plaintiff and Aggrieved
Employees to work while they were clocked out for their meal
periods.
Ms. Kelly does not bring suit in her individual capacity and does
not seek to recover anything through this suit other than
representative civil penalties as permitted under PAGA -- she
brings this action solely in her representative capacity under the
PAGA, on behalf of the State of California and all aggrieved
employees of the Defendants.
In addition, the Defendants implemented other uniform policies and
practices resulting in off-the-clock work and underpayment of
wages, including requiring the Plaintiff and Aggrieved employees to
don and doff required work uniforms off-the-clock -- however, the
Defendants did not pay wages to Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees
for this time spent working off-the-clock despite the integral and
indispensable nature of the uniform requirement, the suit alleges.
Ms. Kelly was employed by the Defendants as a Sales Representative,
a full-time nonexempt position, from June 3, 2024 to Sept. 19,
2024.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bardia A. Akhavan, Esq.
Nahal Barahmand, Esq.
AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES
15760 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1720
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (855) 463-4733
E-mail: Bardia@baalaw.com
Nahal@baalaw.com
TGI FRIDAY'S: Modugno Labor Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMIE CRAMER and
ALEXANDRIA MODUGNO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. TGI FRIDAY'S INC., Case No. 24-08004-sgj
(N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting motion for class certification and related relief:
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order, in furtherance of their
claims under the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act,
29 U.S.C. section 2101 et seq., and New York Labor Law section 860
et seq.
(a) certifying a class comprised of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated former employees (i) who worked at or
reported to one of Defendant’s Facilities, (ii), who were
terminated without cause on or about Oct. 24, 2024 and
within
30 days of that date or who was terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs
and/or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or about
October
24, 2024, (iii) who are affected employees within the
meaning
of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5) and (iv) (the "Federal
Class"),
(b) certifying a class comprised of Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated former employees (i) who worked at or
reported to one of Defendant's Facilities, (ii), who were
terminated without cause on or about Oct. 24, 2024 and
within
30 days of that date or who was terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs
and/or plant closings ordered by the Defendant on or about
Oct. 24, 2024, (iii) who are affected employees within the
meaning of N.Y. Lab. Law section 860-a(1) (the "NY Class"),
(c) appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel,
(d) appointing Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives,
(e) approving the form and manner of Notice, and
(f) and such further relief as this Court may deem proper.
Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 7007-1, on December 5, 2024,
counsel for the parties conferred about the filing of this Motion.
On December 13, 2024, counsel for the Debtors indicated that
Debtors intended to oppose the Motion.
TGI Friday's operates a chain of restaurants.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W6QkG6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason M. Rudd, Esq.
Catherine A. Curtis, Esq.
WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 500
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 692-6200
Facsimile: (214) 692-6255
E-mail: jason.rudd@wickphillips.com
catherine.curtis@wickphillips.com
- and -
Eric J. Monzo, Esq.
Ryan E. Carreon, Esq.
MORRIS JAMES, LLP
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 888-6828
Facsimile: (302) 571-1750
E-mail: emonzo@morrisjames.com
rcarreon@morrisjames.com
- and -
Marc J. Held, Esq.
HELD & HINES, LLP
4815 Avenue N
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (212) 696-4529
Facsimile: (718) 444-5768
E-mail: mheld@heldhines.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Davis Files ERISA Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHIQUITA DAVIS, JANE ALLS, JENNIFER JONES, and, KRISTY BILLUPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., JAMES E. LENTZ,
TETSUO OGAWA, and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC. NORTH AMERICAN
BENEFITS COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01087-SDJ (E.D.
Tex., December 10, 2024) is a class action brought pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Retirement
Savings Plan's fiduciary, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., the
Board of TMNA, and the Toyota Motor North America, Inc. North
American Benefits Committee during the Class Period, for breaches
of its fiduciary duty.
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 it owed to the Plan, to
Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, failing to control the Plan's administrative and
recordkeeping (RKA) costs.
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 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104.
Its actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and
cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the
suit.
The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan during their employment
paying the RKA costs associated with their Plan accounts and were
allegedly subject to the excessive RKA costs.
Toyota Motor North America is the sponsor of the Plan and a named
fiduciary of the Plan with a principal place of business in Plano,
Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kell A. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
501 North IH-35, Suite 111
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 898-9662
Facsimile: (512) 368-9144
E-mail: Kell@kellsimonlaw.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 233-4103
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
TRADEHOME HOLDINGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tradehome Holdings, Inc., Case No.
0:24-cv-04450 (D. Minn., Dec. 10, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant's Website (www.tradehome.com) is not fully and equally
accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in
violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its
implementing regulations.
The Plaintiffs have been denied full and equal access to the
Website and have been denied the opportunity to participate in or
benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations offered therein on a full,
independent, and equal basis, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in
the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to
become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section
363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant
to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat.
section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023).
In addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert
a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The Defendant offers shoes and accessories for sale including
boots, sandals, sneakers, dress shoes, socks, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndselaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Handorf Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE HANDORF, BLACKOAK
LIFE LIMITED AS GP FOR BLACKOAK INVESTORS LP, and PHT HOLDING II
LP, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00032-CJW-MAR
(N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
certifying action, which consists of a claim for breach of
contract, as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following Classes and
Subclasses:
1. Past Losses Class
"All owners of TransAdvantage, TransSavers, TransUltra 2K,
TransUltra 1997, TransUltra LP, TransUltra LP 2005,
TransValue,
and TransValue 2002 issued or insured by Transamerica Life
Insurance Company, or its predecessors, subjected to the
monthly
deduction rate and COI rate increases first announced in or
after 2021."
2. Conversion Subclass
"All members of the Past Losses Class, excluding owners of
TransValue, TransUltra LP, and TransUltra LP 2005."
3. Uniformity Class
"All owners of CR UL policies issued or insured by
Transamerica
Life Insurance Company, or its predecessors, subjected to the
monthly deduction rate and COI rate increases first announced
in
or after 2021, excluding owners of Bond Continuation, ISL
Security Plus, Life Security, Premier Life, Security Plus II,
Security Plus ISWL, Triple Protector, Ultima Simplified
Protector, and Youth Protector."
4. Mortality Factor Subclass
"All members of the Uniformity Class that own AgriVIP,
Bankers
Universal Life, Horizon 2, HUB, HUB PA, Pacific Fidelity UL,
Preferred Gold II, Preferred UL, Summit UL, Uni-VIP HUB, and
Single Premium (plan codes UL1020, UL1021, UL1022, UL1A28,
UL1036, and UL1037)."
In the alternative, the Plaintiffs request that the Court certify
the following state-specific subclasses and product-specific
subclass.
The state-specific subclasses are proposed in lieu of and as
applied to any of the four proposed Classes or Subclasses above
that are not certified (e.g., if certification is denied for the
Past Losses Class, then the Past Losses Four Corners Class is
proposed, in the alternative, instead):
-- Four Corners Class: Members of proposed Classes and Subclasses,
excluding owners whose policies were issued in Arizona,
California, Iowa, Montana, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Washington.
-- Plaintiffs' Issue State Class: Members of the proposed Classes
and
Subclasses whose policies were issued in Arkansas, California,
Ohio, Texas, and Wyoming.
-- Plaintiffs' Products Class: All owners of Plaintiffs' four
products issued or insured by Transamerica Life Insurance
Company,
or its predecessors, subjected to the monthly deduction rate
and
cost of insurance rate increases first announced in or after
2021.
Excluded from each of the foregoing Classes, Subclasses, and
Alternative Classes are Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance
Company, its officers and directors, members of their immediate
families, and the heirs, successors or assigns of any of the
foregoing; anyone employed with Plaintiffs' counsel's firms; any
Judge to whom this case is assigned, and his or her immediate
family; and any owners of policies issued in any foreign country,
United States Territory, the
Armed Forces, Alaska, New Mexico, and South Carolina.
The Plaintiffs request that BlackOak Life Limited be appointed as
class representative for the Past Losses Class and Conversion
Subclass; PHT Holding II LP and Lawrence Handorf be appointed as
class representatives for the Uniformity Class; and PHT Holding II
LP be appointed as class representative for the Mortality Factor
Subclass; and Susman Godfrey L.L.P. be appointed as Class Counsel
for each of the proposed classes.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(k), the undersigned counsel personally
conferred in good faith with counsel for Transamerica concerning
the motion, and Transamerica did not consent to the motion.
Transamerica provides a variety of financial services—from life
insurance to retirement plans.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=679Qyq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Peter Eugene Deegan, Jr., Esq.
Steven Sklaver, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Glenn Bridgman, Esq.
Rohit Nath, Esq.
Jordan Rux, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601-3713
Telephone: (312) 836-4052
E-mail: pdeegan@taftlaw.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com
rnath@susmangodfrey.com
jrux@susmangodfrey.com
Seth Ard, Esq.
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com
rkirkpatrick@susmangodfrey.com
TROJAN BATTERY: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Nunez Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL ZARAGOZA NUNEZ, an individual on behalf of himself, all
aggrieved employees and the State of California as a Private
Attorney's General, v. TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV32809 (Cal. Super Ct., Dec. 12, 2024) alleges that the
Defendant has had a consistent policy and/or practice of:
(1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime
hours worked;
(2) failing to pay all wages owed twice per month,
(3) failing to pay minimum wage;
(4) failing to pay wages due upon termination;
(5) failing to permit compliant meal periods;
(6) failing to provide rest breaks;
(7) failing to provide safe working conditions -- excessive
heat; and
(8) failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements
Defendant is therefore liable for civil penalties under
the Cal. Labor Code, including the Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from Feb. 27, 2018, to Aug.
15, 2024, as a Barton Reactor Operator at Defendant's Santa Fe
Springs, California, facility.
Since 1925 Trojan manufactures deep-cycle flooded, AGM, and gel
batteries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
Hilary Silvia, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM, APC
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 761-5484
Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com
hilary@koullaw.com
TULE LAKE: Has Until Jan. 15, 2025 to File Complaint Response
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SCOTT CRAWFORD, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TULE LAKE LENDING,
LLC, d/b/a RESCUE BUCKS, EIC ENTERPRISES, AGUSTIN GARCIA, APRIL
POPADITCH, SARAH BROWN GARCIA, PENNY MORANDA, and JOHN DOES Nos,
1-25, Case No. 1:24-cv-04305-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas
Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the motion and brief to
extend the time for the Defendant to respond to the Plaintiff's
complaint and Plaintiff's obligation to move for class
certification:
-- The Defendants shall have through and including Jan. 15, 2025,
to
respond to the Plaintiff's complaint.
-- The Deadline for the Plaintiff to file for Class Certification
is
suspended and will be addressed in the filing of the Joint
Preliminary Report & Discovery Plan.
Rescue Bucks is a direct loan provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vS20Ok at no extra
charge.[CC]
VISA INC: Faces Class Suit Over Supracompetitive Network Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINETTE JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VISA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09430 (S.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 11, 2024) alleges that Visa has engaged in a continuing scheme
with the purpose and effect of acquiring, enhancing, and
maintaining monopoly power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2, and has entered into unlawful agreements
in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. section 1.
As a material and proximate result of Visa's unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff suffered injury to their property. These injuries include
paying Visa's supracompetitive network fees that were passed
through into the prices of goods and services. The Plaintiff was
also deprived of the benefits of free and open competition, says
the suit.
In addition to violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Visa
intentionally and wrongfully maintained, attempted to maintain,
and/or conspired to maintain monopoly power in the relevant
markets. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Visa intentionally
and wrongfully engaged in conduct, a combination, or conspiracy in
restraint of trade in the violation of the state antitrust laws.
This lawsuit seeks to end Visa's anticompetitive practices, secure
compensation to consumers, and restore genuine competition and
innovation to the debit network market.
Visa owns and operates the Visa debit network, the largest debit
network in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
David H. Seidel, Esq.
Christopher J. Hydal, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1505
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
czirpoli@saverilawfirm.com
dseidel@saverilawfirm.com
chydal@saverilawfirm.com
WILLIAMS PLUMBING: Lund Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARRI LUND, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WILLIAMS PLUMBING, HEATING & UTILITIES, INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00192-JTJ (D. Mont., Dec. 11, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Montana Wage Payment Act.
Plaintiff Lund worked for Williams Plumbing on an hourly basis from
September 2023 to June 2024. Williams Plumbing also paid Lund
additional compensation, including what Williams Plumbing called an
"hourly per diem." When calculating Lund's regular rate of pay for
determining his overtime rate, Williams Plumbing did not include
this additional compensation. This means that Lund's overtime
hours, when paid, were at an artificially low rate, the suit
contends.
In addition to Williams Plumbing's artificially low rates, it
simply didn't pay overtime for certain hours worked by Lund over 40
each week. More specifically, Williams Plumbing did not pay Lund
and workers like him, for the significant time Lund and these other
workers would spend traveling between Williams Plumbing's jobsites,
alleges the suit.
Williams Plumbing is a plumbing, civil construction, and HVAC
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nate McConnell, Esq.
MCCONNELL LAW OFFICES, PLLC
712 Howell St.
Missoula, MT 59802
Telephone: (406) 214-2445
E-mail: nate@natemcconnelllaw.com
- and -
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
Justin Vineyard, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5200
E-mail: matt@parmet.law
justin@parmet.law
ZYMERGEN INC: Loses Bid to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the United States Dsitrict Court for the
Northern District of California denied defendants' motion to
certify its order for interlocutory appeal in the case captioned as
BIAO WANG, Lead Plaintiff, v. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 21-cv-06028-PCP (N.D. Calif.).
Lead plaintiff Biao Wang represents a putative class of people
alleging securities fraud arising from defendant Zymergen, Inc.'s
initial public offering in 2021.
Zymergen went public at $31 per share, touting its "biofacturing"
process that would allow Zymergen to make products "faster, cheaper
and more sustainably than traditional chemistry." It sold around
18.5 million shares of common stock at $31 per share in the first
public offering, yielding proceeds of nearly $530 million. Its
registration statement discussed various products in Zymergen's
development pipeline, estimating a total market opportunity of $1.2
trillion across twenty industries. The statement suggested that the
company expected to begin generating revenue in late 2021. Mr.
Wang alleges that these and other statements were either untrue
statements of material fact or that they omitted material facts
about Zymergen's business projections.
Mr. Wang filed his initial complaint on August 4, 2021. The
complaint named as defendants Zymergen, Josh Hoffman (Zymergen's
CEO), Enakshi Singh (Zymergen's CFO), the other members of
Zymergen's board, and the underwriters of the IPO. On February 24,
2022, Mr. Wang filed his first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 78. This
complaint added the individual SoftBank, True Ventures, and DCVC
funds (but not the management companies) as defendants. It included
a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act against Zymergen,
the individual board members and executives, and the underwriters,
as well as a Section 15 claim against the individual defendants and
the three investors.
Three motions to dismiss followed: one by Zymergen, the individual
defendants, and the True Ventures funds (also joined by the
underwriters); one by the DCVC funds; and one by the SoftBank
funds. On November 29, 2022, the Court denied the motions to
dismiss as to the Section 11 claim and granted them as to the
Section 15 claim.
After this case was assigned to a new district judge on December
21, 2023, Mr. Wang moved for leave to file a second amended
complaint reasserting the Section 15 claims against the individual
defendants and the SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures funds. He also
sought to add the three separate management companies as defendants
to the Section 15 claim. The Court granted Mr. Wang's motion.
The SoftBank, DCVC, and True Ventures defendants thereafter moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint. The defendants asserted a
statute of limitations defense, arguing that Mr. Wang's claims
against them were time barred. The Court rejected the statute of
limitations defense as to both the funds and the management
companies.
The Court made two key rulings regarding the relation back of
claims under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
First, with respect to the claims against fund defendants, it held
that the reasserted claims against the fund defendants related back
to the filing of the first amended complaint. Since the earlier
dismissal of claims against the fund defendants was without
prejudice and no final judgment was entered, they remained parties.
The Section 11 and Section 15 claims in Mr. Wang's second amended
complaint arose from the same transaction as the first complaint,
thus satisfying Rule 15(c)(1)(B) and falling within the statute of
limitations.
Second, regarding the claims against management companies, the
Court found that claims against the management companies might
relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C). Although the first amended
complaint did not name these companies, the pleadings indicated
they should have known they would have been named but for a mistake
regarding their role in Zymergen's IPO. The Court determined that
Mr. Wang plausibly alleged that the claims against the management
companies would relate back under this rule.
Defendants now ask the Court to certify that order for
interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).
The first question that defendants seek to certify for
interlocutory review concerns whether the timeliness of a claim
asserted against a previously dismissed defendant is governed by
Rule 15(c)(1)(C) as a party "brought in by amendment" or by Rule
15(c)(1)(B) as a party that remained a defendant despite the
dismissal. The Court finds this question does not meet the
requirements for certification under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).
According to the Court, given that so many parties, issues, and
claims will remain in this case whether or not the funds remain
parties, an appellate decision with respect to the first question
will have a relatively minimal impact on the overall case.
More fundamentally, defendants have not identified a substantial
ground for difference of opinion on the first question.
Because existing circuit precedent agrees with the Court's decision
and defendants have identified only two somewhat contrary district
court decisions, defendants have not identified a substantial
ground for difference in opinion that could justify an
interlocutory appeal.
Finally, the Court finds certifying the first question will not
materially advance termination of the litigation because the bulk
of the case will move forward regardless of the outcome on appeal.
The second question that defendants seek to certify for
interlocutory review concerns whether Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s "mistake"
test can be used where an amended complaint adds a claim against a
new defendant as opposed to substituting a new defendant for an
existing defendant. This question is improper for certification
because defendants never argued in their motions to dismiss that
Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s "mistake" test does not apply to newly added
defendants, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
http://urlcurt.com/u?l=fT5tDv
About Zymergen Inc.
Zymergen, Inc., which was founded in April 2013, is a science and
material innovation company focused on designing, developing and
commercializing bio-based products for use in a variety of
industries. It is based in Emeryville, Calif.
Zymergen and its affiliates filed Chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D.
Del. Lead Case No. 23-11661) on Oct. 3, 2023. At the time of the
filing, Zymergen reported $100 million to $500 million in both
assets and liabilities.
Judge Karen B. Owens oversees the cases.
The Debtors tapped Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP as legal
counsel and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC, as claims and
noticing agent.
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors retained Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP as lead counsel, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP as
co-counsel, and Berkeley Research Group, LLC, as financial
advisor.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Risks Legal Action in UK Over Talcum Powder
----------------------------------------------------------------
france24.com reports that J&J risks UK court action for the first
time over the allegations, having faced a series of similar
lawsuits in North America.
KP Law, the firm representing about 2,000 claimants, said "women
who have been diagnosed with life-changing and life-limiting
cancers were exposed to asbestos contained within the company's
talcum powder".
In response Erik Haas, J&J's worldwide vice president of
litigation, said "Johnson & Johnson takes the issue of talc safety
incredibly seriously and always has".
Haas added that J&J's own analysis found an absence of asbestos
contamination in its products and said "independent science makes
clear that talc is not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer
nor mesothelioma".
J&J has until the end of the year to respond to a letter sent on
behalf of KP Law's clients, following which documents will be filed
in the UK's High Court.
The law firm is representing predominantly women regarding the
case, and says it has been contacted by thousands more, adding that
some have died of their cancers.
Lawyers claim that the US-based corporation knew "as early as the
1970s that asbestos in its talc products was dangerous but failed
to warn consumers and carried on producing and selling the products
in the UK until as recently as 2022".
J&J said that Kenvue, its former consumer-health division that it
separated out in 2023, is responsible for "any alleged talc
liability that arises outside the US or Canada".
"Decades of testing by experts... demonstrates that the product is
safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer,”
Kenvue said in a statement.
However, in September, J&J increased its offer to settle talc
claims relating to ovarian cancer in the United States to around $8
billion to be paid over 25 years.
Earlier this year, the company agreed to pay $700 million to settle
allegations it misled customers about the safety of its
talcum-based powder products in North America.
The company did not admit wrongdoing in its settlement but withdrew
the product from the North American market in 2020.
The World Health Organization's cancer agency in July classified
talc as "probably carcinogenic" for humans.
A summary of studies published in 2020 covering 250,000 women in
the United States did not find a statistical link between the use
of talc on the genitals and the risk of ovarian cancer.
*********
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 ***