/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/241231.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 31, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 2 Headlines 86TH CPW INC: De Los Santos Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ABC LEGAL: Face Crowley Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ABC LEGAL: Faces Bodtker Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ALL STARS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges AMOREPACIFIC US: Murphy Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ANAVEX LIFE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Blum Shareholder Suit APPLE INC: Court Appoints Six Firms to Lead Monopoly Class Action APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in VonDeylen Suit ARIZONA: Faces Suit Over Negligence in Health Care Fraud Scheme ASHLAND, MA: Bailey-Ricci Seeks to Recover Back Wages BANK OF AMERICA: EU Bond Antitrust Settlement Gets Final Court Nod BATTLBOX LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says BOB BAFFERT: W.D. Kentucky Narrows Claims in Beychok Class Suit BOCA DEL RIO: Duran and Navarro Sue Over Labor Law Breaches BOJANGLES RESTAURANT: Appeals Court Decertifies Labor Class Action BT GROUP: CAT Dismisses Collective Unfair Pricing Class Action CALIFORNIA: Gomez Files Writ of Habeas Corpus to Cal. Appellate Ct. CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Military Aid to Israel CBDMD INC: Davis Class Suit Pending in C.D. California CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $2.925MM CICA COLLECTION: Soto Sues Over False Representations CITARELLA OPERATING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says CNU OF TEXAS: Sends Unwanted Solicitation Texts, Callier Suit Says COAST ALUMINUM: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages COLE CV VINELAND: Cheli Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beranek Says CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Brown Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA CROSSROADS TRADING: Jenkins Sues Over Misleading Prices CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Faces Blue Suit Over Private Info Disclosure DATANYZE LLC: Foley Sues Over Use of PII for Commercial Purposes DEXCOM INC: Court Consolidates Securities Cases With Alonzo Suit DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Yammine Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DISCORD INC: Faces Hulett Suit Over Automatic Renewal Subscriptions E-TRADE SECURITIES: Faces Simmons Suit Over Cash Sweep Program EAGLE FAMILY: Ortiz Suit Removed to S.D. New York ELIZABETH STREET: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Discrimination ENTRATA INC: Trimble Suit Removed to D. Maryland EVERWISE CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Wolf Claims EVOLVE BANK: Faces Tonner Class Suit Over Mismanagement of Funds EXCELLENCE HOME: Silva Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: McAtee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: McBrayer Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: Skinner Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: Vanspyker Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma FAT BOYZ BURRITO: Andasol Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages FI9 COMPLIANCE: Mijangos Files Suit in California State Court FIVE LITTLE MONKEYS: Cohen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. FORBES MEDIA: Collects Website Visitors' Data, Berman Alleges FROEDTERT HEALTH: Class Certification Granted in Lutz Lawsuit FS FIRST: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges GLASSES USA INC: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California GRAMMER LOGISTICS: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Pay, Beard Alleges GREAT EATS: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Wages Practices HANLEY CENTER: Colbert Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HIGH HOOK LLC: Morgan FLSA Suit Removed to D. South Carolina HOME DEPOT: Faces Chism Class Suit Over Accessibility Barriers HOPKINSVILLE KY OPCO: Hollis Sues Over Unpaid Compensations HORIZON HEALTH: Appeals Court Certifies Nicole Ruest Class Action HUMBLE BUNDLE: Hasani Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info JAY PETROLEUM: Miles Sues Over Inaccessible Facilities JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Ineffective Meds JRA MARBLE: Contreras Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JSC KASPI.KZ: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Hearing Aid Coverage KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Discrimination KATAPULT HOLDINGS: $2.5M Settlement in McIntosh Suit Has Final OK KEURIG GREEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Baracco Says KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 7 LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Court Strikes Bid to Dismiss Skov Class Complaint LAMB WESTON: Alamo's Roast Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy LEXINGTON LAW: $1.8B Payout Issued to Customers in False Ads' Suit LIBERTY BROADBAND: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Charter LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Wins Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Colonna Suit LOREN D. STARK: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $750,000 LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $250,000 MAC PROPERTIES: Tenant Sue Over Housing Discrimination MADHAVA HONEY: Products Contain Toxic Phthalates, Cross Alleges MADONNA: Fans Drop Class Action Lawsuit Over Late Concerts MAHALAXMI INN: Salazar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MATHIS BROS: Simpson Suit Removed to C.D. California MCIC INC: Mesothelioma Victims Settle Class Action for $57MM METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: Fiorito Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota MGP INGREDIENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 14 MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES: Provost Suit Removed to N.D. California MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hair Care Products MIXX LIFESTYLE: McRae Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MORGAN STANLEY: Gagner Sues Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Programs MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Robertson TCPA Lawsuit MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Settlement in Lenorowitz Suit Denied Approval MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Courtemanche's Bid for Limited Discovery Denied NADAP INC: Court Okays Settlement Agreement in Fleming FLSA Case NC BANK: Fails to Pay Mortgage Loan Officers' Pay Under NJWHL OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Bloom Suit Removed to E.D. California OPTUMRX INC: Rich Apothecary Sues Over Unlawful Conduct OUTRIGGER HOTELS HAWAII: Nacario Files Suit in Haw. Dist. Ct. PROFIRE ENERGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First Ceco PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Court Certifies Class in Knight Lawsuit QUICK BOX: Agrees to $5.5-Mil. La Pura Class Action Settlement REBBL INC: Roffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REEL PRODUCE INC: Lima Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RELOGISTICS SERVICES: Taylor Sues to Recover Compensation RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina SAINT THOMAS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Germano Suit Says SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Khan Files Suit in N.D. Illinois SERRANO IMPORT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property SIKA CORPORATION: Cook Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation SKIMS BODY: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages SMARTFOODS INC: Faces Class Suit Over Popcorn Preservatives SOLID MANAGEMENT: Russian Court Dismisses Yandex Sale Class Action SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Prison Inmates' Low-Wage Class Suit SPECIALIZED LOAN: Layton Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed SPRING REFLEXOLOGY: Xia Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices SRP FEDERAL CREDIT: Allen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Black Suit Says STEAM LOGISTICS: Shelton Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Tennessee STOP & SHOP: Lovett Sues Over Potato Chips' Deceptive Labels SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies Class in Carlson Wage Lawsuit TAUBER REALTY: Brito Sues Over ADA Breaches of Commercial Property TAYMAN INDUSTRIES: Villarreal Suit Removed to S.D. California UNITED SERVICES: Settles 2021 Breach Class Action for $3.25MM UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aperam US VGW HOLDINGS: N.D. Georgia Grants Bid to Dismiss Fair Gaming Suit VISA INC: Bueno Sues Over Alleged Monopoly in Debit Network Market W.R.R. PETROLEUM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property WALGREENS CO: Agrees to Settle Prescription Class Suit for $100MM WHEEL BAGELS: Vazquez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL WOLFSPEED INC: Court Remands Cadriel Wage Lawsuit WP PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property YAZAM INC: Pope Files Suit in D. Columbia ********* 86TH CPW INC: De Los Santos Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ DELFINO DE LOS SANTOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. 86TH CPW INC. d/b/a 86TH CORNER WINE & LIQUOR CO, 536 J AND J CORPORATION f/d/b/a 86TH CORNER WINE & LIQUOR CO, HOWARD SHIM, and BRIAN PARK, Case No. 1:24-cv-09736 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 18, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages due to fixed salary compensation; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving; unpaid wages, including overtime, due to improper rounding; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. In or around 1992, Predecessor Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a Counter Associate for their liquor store located at 536 Columbus Avenue, New York. The Plaintiff's employment was transferred to the Successor Defendants in or around November 2023, when they purchased the business from Predecessor Defendants. The Plaintiff's employment with Successor Defendants terminated in or around January 2024. The Defendants allegedly compensated Plaintiff in cash every week, without proper paystubs or wage statements. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were similarly compensated in cash every week without proper paystubs or wage statements. 86TH CPW INC., d/b/a 86TH CORNER WINE & LIQUOR CO, is a liquor store in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ABC LEGAL: Face Crowley Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY CROWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02092 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 18, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's failed to timely report the Data Breach and made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their personally identifiable information. According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known that each victim of the Data Breach deserved prompt and efficient notice of the Data Breach and assistance in mitigating the effects of PII misuse.     In failing to adequately protect its employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of current and former employees. The Data Breach occurred on August 7, 2024. Following an internal investigation, Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including but not limited to Plaintiff’s email address and Social Security Number. On Dec. 6, 2024–four months after the Data Breach first occurred–Defendant finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. Accordingly, the cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted-refusing to tell employees how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, or why it took the Defendant over four months to finally begin notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information, the suit further alleges. ABC Legal provides commercial services. The Company offers court filing, messenger and document retrieval, and investigation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC  One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 60611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com ABC LEGAL: Faces Bodtker Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- SAMANTHA BODTKER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-02110 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 20, 2024) concerns Defendant's failure to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Defendant's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Defendant's employees, contractors, customers, and individuals served notice, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data Breach -- and the successful exfiltration of Private Information—were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Defendant. As part of its operations, ABC Legal collects, maintains, and stores highly sensitive personal information belonging to its employees, contractors, customers, and individuals who are served legal notice by ABC Legal, including, but not limited to their full names, Social Security numbers, and email addresses (collectively, "personally identifying information," PII). On Aug. 7, 2024, the Defendant experienced a data breach incident in which unauthorized cybercriminals accessed its information systems and databases and stole Private Information belonging to Plaintiff and Class members (the "Data Breach"). The Defendant discovered this unauthorized access on November 11, 2024. Subsequent investigation determined that the unauthorized actors were able to access and exfiltrate Private Information concerning Plaintiff and Class members. On Dec. 6, 2024, Defendant sent a notice to individuals whose information was accessed in the Data Breach. Because the Defendant stored and handled Plaintiff's and Class members' highly-sensitive Private Information, it had a duty and obligation to safeguard this information and prevent unauthorized third parties from accessing this data. Allegedly, the Defendant failed to fulfill this obligation, as unauthorized cybercriminals breached Defendant's information systems and databases and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Defendant's employees, contractors, customers, and individuals served notice, including Plaintiff and Class members. The Data Breach -- and the successful exfiltration of Private Information -- were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Defendant. The Data Breach occurred because Defendant failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard its information systems and databases. Further, the Defendant failed to timely detect the Data Breach. Moreover, before the Data Breach occurred, Defendant failed to inform the public that its data security practices were deficient and inadequate, the suit alleges. ABC Legal is a legal services company with over 500 employees and contractors that operates a network of service processors in every state in the United States, as well as internationally for seventy-seven countries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com ALL STARS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. All Stars Premium Sportswear, LLC d/b/a All Star Elite, Case No. 0:24-cv-04540-PJS-SGE (D. Minn., Dec. 18, 2024) arises because Defendant's website, www.allstarelite.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. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to jerseys, shirts, pants, shoes, hats, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason D. Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com AMOREPACIFIC US: Murphy Sues Over Website Inaccessibility --------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMOREPACIFIC US INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09427 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://us.laneige.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. By failing to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, the Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, AmorePacific US Inc. operates the Laneige online retail store and the commercial website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about its skincare products. [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 ANAVEX LIFE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Blum Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anavex Life Sciences Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2024, that the motion to dismiss the Blum shareholder class suit is awaiting the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 13, 2024, a shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint is captioned Blum v. Anavex Life Sciences, Corp. et al., case number 1:24-cv-01910, and it named the Company and Christopher Missling as Defendants. The complaint alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 associated with disclosures and statements made with respect to certain clinical trials for ANAVEX®2-73 related to Rett syndrome (the "March 2024 Complaint"). At a hearing on or about June 13, 2024, the Court named another purported Company shareholder, Quintessa Huey, as lead plaintiff with respect to the March 2024 Complaint. An Amended Complaint was filed by the appointed lead plaintiff on July 12, 2024, which asserts allegations related to purported violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act tied to disclosures associated with the same clinical trials related to Rett Syndrome, and which names the Company and Christopher Missling as defendants. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages, as well as costs, including counsel and expert witness fees, on behalf of class of investors who purchased stock of the Company on the NASDAQ during the period February 1, 2022 through January 1, 2024. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is fully-briefed and awaiting a decision by the Court. Headquartered in New York, NY, Anavex Life Science Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. Shares of the its stock trade on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol "AVXL." [BN] APPLE INC: Court Appoints Six Firms to Lead Monopoly Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- A judge in New Jersey on Friday, December 20, named six law firms to represent consumers accusing Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab of illegally monopolizing the smartphone market. U.S. District Judge Julien Xavier Neals appointed, opens new tab lawyers to lead the litigation from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Girard Sharp, Seeger Weiss, Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, Susman Godfrey, and Hausfeld. The firms had been competing for leadership in the case, which includes millions of U.S. customers who bought iPhones directly from Apple, before reaching an agreement on the lineup. The lead counsel team stands to win an outsized share of legal fees stemming from any settlement of judgment against Apple. The consumers' claims mirror a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department in March. The lawsuits allege Apple set up roadblocks to constrain consumer choice for mobile devices and for services such as digital wallets and messaging. Apple has denied any wrongdoing. It did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Apple's defense team in the consumer cases includes lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The plaintiffs' firms appointed on Friday have secured billions of dollars in settlements and judgments in other lawsuits. Among their cases, Hagens Berman is helping lead antitrust lawsuits that the National Collegiate Athletic Association has tentatively settled for at least $2.8 billion. Hausfeld was among the firms leading antitrust claims against Blue Cross Blue Shield that settled for $2.7 billion, and Susman was co-lead counsel for Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation action that Fox News settled for $787 million. Neals in October appointed, opens new tab another group of law firms to represent consumers in the Apple litigation who bought iPhones from mobile phone carriers. Those law firms are Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky, Berger Montague, Lockridge Grindal Nauen and Spector Roseman & Kodroff. Three other firms -- Korein Tillery, MoloLamken and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick -- will lead a proposed class action, opens new tab on behalf of Apple Watch purchasers. The case is In Re: Apple Inc Smartphone Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, 2:24-md-03113-JXN-LDW. [GN] APPLIED THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Applied Therapeutics, Inc. ("Applied Therapeutics" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: APLT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning the true state of Applied Therapeutics' Phase III INSPIRE trial; notably, electronic data capture issues and a dosing error in the dose-escalation phase of the study. If you bought shares of Applied Therapeutics between January 3, 2024 and December 2, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/applied-therapeutics/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is February 18, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct.  More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] APTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in VonDeylen Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Donovan W. Frank of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Aptive Environmental LLC's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned as Kristi VonDeylen, Plaintiff, v. Aptive Environmental LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 24-2051 (DWF/DJF) (D. Minn.). On February 1, 2006, Plaintiff's cellular phone number was placed on the national Do-Not-Call registry. Years later, in May of 2020, Plaintiff sought out and consented to pest control services to be performed by Aptive. At that time, Plaintiff signed and agreed to a Service Agreement with Aptive, under which Aptive would perform quarterly services for the duration of twelve months. The Aptive Agreement contained an arbitration provision. The Aptive Agreement additionally states that Aptive is permitted to contact Plaintiff for the purpose of appointment reminders and account communications. Separate from the Aptive Agreement, there was an additional "Welcome Checklist" that Plaintiff signed. The "Welcome Checklist" contained a clause that allowed Plaintiff to consent to receiving text messages. Plaintiff did not check the box on the checklist. Aptive's and Plaintiff's agreement and services relationship formally ended in January of 2021. On June 2, 2023, Plaintiff received an automated text from Aptive requesting that she set up "autopay." Plaintiff replied "Stop," to this message and received a message stating that she was unsubscribed. Then on November 23, 2023, Plaintiff received another automated text message, letting her know that she had an upcoming appointment, on November 27, 2023. Plaintiff again replied "Stop," and received a message stating that she was unsubscribed. Later that same day, Plaintiff received another message from Aptive. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint seeking damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal remedy. Plaintiff asserts claims for negligent violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 227 et seq., willful violation of the TCPA, and invasion of privacy. Aptive now moves to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending arbitration. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff does not dispute that the arbitration clause in the Aptive Agreement is valid. Instead, the parties dispute whether the arbitration agreement encompasses the current dispute. The Court applies "ordinary state law contract principles to decide whether parties have agreed to arbitrate a particular matter. Aptive contends the arbitration clause is broad, without exclusions, and applies to the Plaintiff's TCPA claims as they stem from the agreement, related services, or the parties' relationship. Aptive argues the Plaintiff’s phone number was in its system because of the agreement, and the arbitration provision includes a survival clause, extending its applicability beyond the contract's expiration. Conversely, the Plaintiff acknowledges the clause's broad language but asserts her claims are outside its scope, as they concern unsolicited text messages unrelated to the contractual relationship and sent after it ended. The Court determined that the Plaintiff's claims are not subject to the arbitration agreement. The claims focus on unsolicited text messages sent over two years after the contractual relationship ended and are unrelated to the services provided under the agreement. The Court held that the survival clause in the arbitration provision does not extend to claims disconnected from the agreement or the parties' relationship. Access to the Plaintiff's phone number due to the past relationship is insufficient to link the claims to the agreement. The Court emphasized that even broad arbitration clauses have limits on their scope. Judge Frank concludes that the Plaintiff's claims against Aptive do not relate to the performance of Aptive's duties under the Aptive Agreement. Instead, the claims are only tenuously connected to the Aptive Agreement simply because Aptive had access to Plaintiff's cell number because of the past relationship. The Court does not find that this connection is enough for the claims to 'arise out of' the agreement. Therefore, it finds that Plaintiff's claims are not covered by the arbitration clause and Aptive's motion is denied." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3GkERe ARIZONA: Faces Suit Over Negligence in Health Care Fraud Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Donovan Quintero, writing for Navajo Times, reports that in a scathing 232-page legal complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, the State of Arizona and its Medicaid agency, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, stand accused of enabling and funding one of the largest Medicaid fraud scandals in recent U.S. history. The lawsuit, led by attorneys John B. Brewer and Dane L. Wood of BrewerWood P.L.L.C., and McCoy Leavitt Laskey LLC, alleges that gross negligence by state officials allowed fraudulent addiction treatment providers to exploit vulnerable Native American populations, leading to severe harm and the loss of lives. The class action lawsuit represents thousands of Native Americans and the estates of deceased victims, who were allegedly harmed in what the plaintiffs call the "sober living crisis." The crisis was fueled by fraudulent addiction treatment facilities that offered little to no genuine care while exploiting Medicaid funds. Instead of helping residents recover, the lawsuit claims these facilities exacerbated addiction, displaced individuals, and contributed to wrongful deaths. According to Brewer and Wood, the state's failure to address the growing fraud has resulted in damages amounting to $2.8 billion in Medicaid payments over four years. "These facilities not only failed to provide the promised addiction treatment but also exacerbated the conditions of the victims, resulting in deaths, drug dependencies, and unthinkable suffering," the lawsuit alleges. Brewer, representing the plaintiffs, added, "Native Americans deserve better from the state of Arizona. This lawsuit is not just about financial accountability but about justice for those who have suffered unimaginable harm." Promises of housing, treatment The lawsuit describes a calculated scheme in which Native Americans were targeted for their Medicaid benefits through the American Indian Health Program. Unscrupulous providers allegedly lured individuals from reservations and urban areas with promises of housing and treatment but instead funneled them into fraudulent sober living homes and behavioral health facilities. Once admitted, many were kept incapacitated through drugs and alcohol. "Most of them get new addictions, and most of the sober living (homes) not only encourage it, but they provide alcohol as well," Brewer explained. "They keep them because they give them a place to live. Oftentimes, they're decent places to live -- swimming pools, amenities -- but it's all about control. They serve them drugs and alcohol to keep them intoxicated and compliant, so they can keep billing Medicaid." State officials were aware of the issue as early as January 2020, Wood said, citing internal documents. "These facilities, supposed to be making people sober, were doing just the opposite -- giving them alcohol and drugs to keep them under control and addicted," he said. "It's just so inexplicable that the state knew this was happening and kept funding it anyway." AHCCCS has taken action recently to address fraud in sober living facilities. According to its website, the agency has suspended more than 300 behavioral health providers since May 2023 based on credible allegations of fraud, much of it tied to sober living facilities. In December 2023, a grand jury indicted 10 individuals accused of operating unlicensed sober living or transitional homes in the Phoenix area. These individuals allegedly engaged in patient brokering, directing vulnerable patients -- many of them Native Americans enrolled in the AIHP -- to fraudulent behavioral health facilities in exchange for kickbacks. Earlier in July 2023, a Mesa woman pleaded guilty to fraud targeting AHCCCS, illustrating the scale of fraudulent operations and the state's ongoing efforts to crack down on such schemes. While these enforcement actions indicate AHCCCS's recent commitment to addressing fraudulent activities, the plaintiffs argue that such measures are too little, too late. "AHCCCS was funding this fraud to occur because, in other words, if AHCCCS stopped paying, the fraud would've gone away," Wood argued. "If the fraud goes away, then there's no reason for these people to be harmed. The fraudsters wouldn't keep going." Documents in the lawsuit reveal that AHCCCS officials were alerted to fraudulent practices as far back as July 2019. Whistleblowers provided detailed reports of fraud schemes, including the use of false Medicaid claims, "ghost billing," and the trafficking of individuals to treatment centers. Medicaid billing for behavioral health services skyrocketed during this period, increasing from $53.5 million in 2019 to $668 million by 2022. Fraud escalates -- and state knew Despite these warnings, the state allegedly continued payments, enabling the fraud to escalate. Brewer recounted a victim's story to illustrate the exploitation. "We heard the story of one girl; her family took her kids, and she was brokered into a house with a swimming pool -- a big draw for her. But when she got there, they served her drugs and alcohol. It was all about control, a means to an end," said Brewer. Another victim's words captured the stark reality: "We weren't patients; we were dollar signs." Wood added, "There was no goal of providing any real treatment. These individuals were treated as chattel -- a means for fraudulently billing AHCCCS." The lawsuit highlights the devastating toll on Native American communities, which have historically faced systemic inequities and inadequate healthcare access. The plaintiffs allege that the fraud disproportionately harmed Native Americans, leading to addiction relapses, homelessness, and wrongful deaths. In many cases, victims entered these facilities seeking help but found themselves trapped in a cycle of abuse and exploitation. Some were reportedly trafficked from reservations against their will, while others developed new addictions or suffered overdoses in environments that were supposed to foster sobriety. Brewer and Wood argue that state officials not only ignored red flags but failed to act decisively even when the extent of the fraud became evident. "It blows the mind that the state knew this was happening five years ago -- which they did. Why did they keep going and keep paying, knowing that these Native Americans were being harmed? That's at the heart of this action," Wood said. Preventing tragedies The plaintiffs seek damages exceeding $300,000 per individual and demand systemic changes to Arizona's Medicaid oversight. The lawsuit invokes Arizona's Wrongful Death Act and federal Medicaid regulations, alleging that AHCCCS violated its obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of Medicaid recipients. Brewer and Wood emphasized that the lawsuit is about more than financial compensation -- it's about preventing similar tragedies in the future. "This lawsuit is about exposing the truth and ensuring that such a travesty is never repeated," Brewer said. The plaintiffs have also requested that the case be designated as a "complex civil action," which would require continuous judicial oversight. This designation reflects the breadth of the allegations, the large number of victims, and the systemic changes needed to address the failures. Arizona officials, including Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, have acknowledged the Medicaid fraud crisis but have yet to provide comprehensive solutions. While AHCCCS has issued statements committing to reforms, the lawsuit casts doubt on these efforts, citing years of systemic failures. Brewer criticized the state's inaction and its refusal to take early corrective measures. "They knew in great detail what was going on, how it was being done, and the injury it caused to Native Americans. Yet, they kept funding it anyway," he said. Wood added. The lawsuit also cites Attorney General Mayes' acknowledgment of the victims' dehumanizing treatment. "Even the Attorney General referred to these individuals as ‘chattel,'" Brewer noted. The plaintiffs hope that the case will not only provide justice for the victims but also serve as a catalyst for systemic change. "This isn't just a legal battle -- it's a moral one," Brewer said. "We owe it to the Native American community to hold the state accountable for its failures and ensure this never happens again." The state of Arizona has yet to file its formal response to the lawsuit. [GN] ASHLAND, MA: Bailey-Ricci Seeks to Recover Back Wages ----------------------------------------------------- COLTON BAILEY-RICCI, Plaintiff, Individually and as Plaintiff Class Representative v. TOWN OF ASHLAND, Defendant, Individually and as Defendant Class Representative, Case No. 24-CV-3234 (Mass. Sup., Middlesex Cty., December 11, 2024) seeks to recover back wages for Plaintiff and up to hundreds of police officers who attended and completed a Massachusetts police academy within the last three years and were underpaid by municipalities acting in violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 41, section 96B, based on collective bargaining agreements negotiated with local unions associated with, guided by and part of Massachusetts Coalition of Police-MassCOP. M.G.L. c. 41 section 96B, requires that police officers be paid during the 6-month academy period exactly what they are paid after graduating and becoming sworn officers. However, the Defendant paid Plaintiff at a lower so-called "Training Rate." Guided by policies and positions articulated by MassCop, the local union agreed to a Training Rate for academy recruits in its governing CBA with the Defendant, even though by statute academy recruits are not members of any bargaining unit and not covered by the CBA, says the suit. The Town of Ashland is a duly incorporated municipality within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Town has a Police Department established in accordance with Massachusetts law. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Traficonte, Esq. 23 Grenville Road Watertown, MA 02472 Telephone: (617) 913-5918 E-mail: johntraficonte@gmail.com BANK OF AMERICA: EU Bond Antitrust Settlement Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the class action settlement reached by the parties in the case styled IN RE EUROPEAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Lead Case No. 19-cv-2601 (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Ohio Carpenters' Pension Fund, Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103 I.B.E.W., and San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association on behalf of themselves and the other members of the Settlement Class have entered into a settlement as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch International, NatWest Markets Plc, NatWest Markets Securities Inc., Nomura International plc, UBS AG, UBS Europe SE, UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Jefferies International Limited, and Jefferies LLC. By Order dated July 29, 2024, the Court: (i) preliminarily approved the Settlement; (ii) ordered that notice of the proposed Settlement be provided to the Settlement Class; (iii) provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity to object to the proposed Settlement; (v) provided Settlement Class Members with the opportunity to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class; and (iv) scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement. The Court conducted a hearing on December 6, 2024 to consider, among other things, (i) whether the terms and conditions of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should therefore be approved; and (ii) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against the Settling Defendants. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and based on the record before the Court, the Court certifies, for the purposes of settlement only the following Settlement Class: All persons or entities who or which purchased or sold one or more European Government Bond(s) in the United States directly from a Defendant, Deutsche Bank, or Rabobank, or a direct or indirect parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or division of a Defendant, Deutsche Bank, or Rabobank, or any of their alleged co-conspirators, from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2016. The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied for settlement purposes as follows: a. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(1), the Court determines that the Settlement Class Members are so numerous that their joinder before the Court would be impracticable. b. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2), the Court determines that there are one or more questions of fact or law common to the Settlement Class. c. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3), the Court determines that Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the claims of the Settlement Class. d. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court determines that Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs are certified as class representatives of the Settlement Class. e. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual Settlement Class Members. f. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this Action. g. Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Co-Lead Counsel are certified as class counsel for the Settlement Class. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects, and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class. Except as to any claim of those persons who have timely requested exclusion from the Settlement Class, all of the claims asserted against the Settling Defendants in the Action by Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are dismissed with prejudice. The Parties shall bear their own costs and expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Stipulation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vkWPEe BATTLBOX LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BATTLBOX, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09733 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2024) alleges that the Battlbox failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.battlbox.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Battlbox operates an online interactive Website and retail store across the United States. This online interactive Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation because it is a sales establishment.[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 BOB BAFFERT: W.D. Kentucky Narrows Claims in Beychok Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Claria Horn Boom of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL E. BEYCHOK, et al., Plaintiffs v. ROBERT A. BAFFERT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00100-CHB (W.D. Ky.). Racehorse Medina Spirit finished first in the 2021 Kentucky Derby, but his reign as champion was short lived. Several months later, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission ("KHRC") stewards disqualified Medina Spirit due to a failed post-race drug test. The disqualification meant the stewards announced a new order of finish wherein racehorse Mandaloun, who originally finished second, now placed first. The Plaintiffs placed bets on Mandaloun, which lost based on the stewards' race-day official finish. They argue that they would have won their wagers but for the "drug-induced win by Medina Sprit." The Court must consider whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to state a claim under federal and Kentucky law. The Plaintiffs--Michael E. Beychok, Justin Wunderler, Keith Mauer, Jeffrey Kaufman, Todd Scoville, Brian Daury, Matthew Wiley, James Davis Jr., Randall Jason King, Theresa Martin, Andy McVay, Roger Thomas, Jeffrey Andrews, Jason Eck, Carlo Capogreco, Steven Laibstain, Randall Robert Thompson, Jeffrey Seals, Dean Hokanson, III, Scot Fennell, Eric Wisher, William Wendoloski, Matthew Schwartz, Andrew Greenberg, Kevin Reed, Robert Fields, Tom Van Houtte, Daniel Smith, Gary Davis, and Charles Cochran--brought suit under federal and state law against Defendants Robert A. Baffert ("Baffert"), Medina Spirit's trainer, and Bob Baffert Racing Stables, Inc. ("Baffert Racing"). The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Plaintiffs responded, and the Defendants replied. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in part, as it relates to Article III standing. Otherwise, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss because the Plaintiffs' allegations are foreclosed under Kentucky law and, in any event, are too speculative. Plaintiffs Beychok, Kaufman, Mauer, and Wunderler filed the initial complaint in this action on July 23, 2021, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Plaintiffs seek to bring this action as a class action, though the certification has not yet been sought. They currently named in the action all bet on the second-place horse but assert that the class includes individuals, who bet on horses, who finished second, third, fourth, and fifth, and so on. The Plaintiffs later filed their Amended Complaint, which remains the operative pleading. After full briefing on a previous motion to dismiss filed by the Defendants and an unsuccessful mediation, the New Jersey Court transferred this case to the Western District of Kentucky, at which point it was assigned to Judge Boom. The Amended Complaint alleges six causes of action: (1) violations of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") (Count I); (2) conspiracy to violate the RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962(d), 1962(c) (Count II); (3) violations of twenty-three state RICO laws (Count III); (4) conspiracy to violate state RICO laws (Count IV); (5) common law fraud (Count V); and (6) equitable fraud. The Defendants move to dismiss on two grounds: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Article III standing principles; and (2) for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claim because they cannot assert an injury due to the KHRC rules and prior court decisions interpreting those rules. Judge Boom opines that the Defendants fail to address the imminence or actuality of the Plaintiffs' alleged injuries, but finally assert the Court should consider whether the alleged injuries are sufficiently "concrete." The Court finds the injury-in-fact requirement has been satisfied. The Court finds that, if it accepts the Plaintiffs' legal theory of injury, then they have sufficiently alleged traceability and redressability. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing Article III standing, and the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be denied as it pertains to standing. The Defendants raise two primary reasons that the Plaintiffs fail to assert an injury for RICO purposes: first, that the KHRC rules, as interpreted by Mattera and other precedent, bar the Plaintiffs from establishing an injury; and second, that the Plaintiffs' gambling losses do not support a RICO claim because any supposed injury would be too speculative to permit recovery. The Court agrees with the Defendants that the KHRC's finality rule precludes any assignment of injury to the Plaintiffs and, in any event, their alleged injury is too speculative to be compensable. Finally, the Court declines to address the Plaintiffs' improperly pled lost opportunity theory. Additionally, Judge Boom holds that the Plaintiffs' alleged injury is too speculative to be compensable under RICO. The Plaintiffs' alleged RICO injury is too speculative to withstand dismissal. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the federal RICO claims. For the first time in their Response, Judge Boom notes that the Plaintiffs offer an alternate theory of injury. Specifically, they argue their injury is not the lost winnings but rather the loss of their "opportunity to win" with their selection of non-enhanced Mandaloun. The Court will not consider allegations made for the first time in a plaintiff's Response when deciding a motion to dismiss. Even if the Court were to consider this allegation, Judge Boom says it would likely fail for the same reasons discussed. Namely, the Plaintiffs bet on the stewards' official order on race day, subject to the KHRC regulations, and received exactly the benefit of their bargain--a payout, or lack thereof, based on the stewards' official race-day call. Because the Plaintiffs failed to plead injury to their "opportunity to win," that allegation is not properly before the Court, and the Court will not consider it. Nonetheless, the Court questions whether such an allegation would have saved the Plaintiffs' case from a motion to dismiss. As the Plaintiffs cannot show an adequate injury, the Court need not address the other elements of their RICO claims. For these reasons, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court rules that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is denied to the extent the Defendants seek dismissal for lack of Article III standing, but the motion is granted in all other respects. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/35c6nhu5 from PacerMonitor.com. BOCA DEL RIO: Duran and Navarro Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- YADIRA DURAN, and FLOR NAVARRO, on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. BOCA DEL RIO AGRICULTURE, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BOCA DEL RIO HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01512-JLT-EPG (E.D. Cal., December 11, 2024) seeks to vindicate the rights afforded to Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers under Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, California law, including the California Labor Code and Wage Orders, and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs were directly or jointly employed by Defendants as non-exempt employees in California on or around April to July 2024. Throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiffs were denied proper compensation for all hours worked, and proper rest and meal periods. Among other things, Defendants failed to keep accurate time and payroll records, says the suit. Boca Del Rio Agriculture, LLC operates throughout the Central Valley of California as an agricultural business. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stan S. Mallison, Esq. Hector R. Martinez, Esq. Caroline L. Hill, Esq. MALLISON & MARTINEZ 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730 Oakland, CA 94612-3547 Telephone: (510) 832-9999 Facsimile: (510) 832-1101 E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com CHill@TheMMLawFirm.com BOJANGLES RESTAURANT: Appeals Court Decertifies Labor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nathaniel Puente, writing for WCNC, reports that a federal appeals court on Tuesday, December 17, decertified class action status for a labor lawsuit against Bojangles filed by store managers in North Carolina and South Carolina who claim they were denied overtime pay. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the current evidence doesn't support class certification in the case against the Charlotte-based fast-food chain. The decision sends the case back to the district court to determine if it meets the proper requirements for class action status. The lawsuit originated in 2020 when a shift manager sued Bojangles, claiming the company made him work off his shift and altered his time card to reduce his hours -- actions that violated both company policy and federal labor law. After the case gained class action certification in November 2020 in the two states, hundreds of similar claims emerged from other managers. In its ruling, the appeals court found that the parameters for the North Carolina and South Carolina classes were "too broad and ill-defined to reach the thresholds of class certification." The classification had included any shift manager who worked for Bojangles during a three-year period, with few other requirements. While expressing sympathy for workers allegedly harmed by the company's actions, the court emphasized that class action certification must be properly applied. The district court had previously granted class status to plaintiffs in the Carolinas while denying it for Bojangles employees in other states. "Our goal today is simply to ensure that the class-action train stays on the tracks," the court wrote in its opinion, adding that it would be "premature for an appellate court to pass judgment" on whether the case ultimately qualifies for class action status. The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings. [GN] BT GROUP: CAT Dismisses Collective Unfair Pricing Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Purnell, writing for Telco Titans, reports that Competition Appeal Tribunal dismisses first-of-its-kind collective class action against BT, having found it to be charging 'excessive', but not 'unfair', prices. Some 2.3 million landline-only customers miss out on compensation that would have cost BT an estimated GBP1.3bn. Ofcom catches fire from CAT verdict, with data gathering and soft-touch regulation mentioned. BT found to have prices ‘significantly and persistently' above expected levels, but not guilty of abusing its position.BT has beaten a class action case that accused it of applying excessive and unfair pricing to 2.3 million current and former customers. On December 21, close to a year after BT first attended court to defend itself, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) unanimously dismissed the claim that the Group abused its dominant position to impose unfair prices on standalone residential landline customers between 2015 and 2018. The CAT found that BT's pricing did not breach competition law. "We take our responsibilities to all our customers very seriously and welcome the ruling", BT said in a statement following the verdict. BT was hit with a first-of-its-kind US-style opt-out collective action in 2021, when Collective Action on Land Lines (CALL) hired law firm Mishcon de Reya to secure compensation for customers affected by "historical overcharging". Potential compensation figures were put around the GBP1.3bn mark, if BT was required to pay. Since the issue first came to light BT made clear its intention to "defend itself vigorously", describing the case as "speculative", and arguing that the Ofcom 2017 intervention on landline pricing that triggered the action, and BT's subsequent voluntary price reduction, should be considered the end of the matter. Justin Le Patourel, a former Ofcom employee who leads the CALL group, said that the issue represented both excessive pricing from BT but also a failing on the regulator's part in "not ordering [BT] to repay the money it made from this". Ofcom came in for some implied criticism from the CAT in its final judgement, but ultimately both it and BT have come away unscathed with the case dismissed in its entirety. Le Patourel has said that CALL is considering its options, including an appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge the CAT's verdict. The case is the first opt-out collective class action to take place in the UK since the collective proceedings regime was introduced in 2015. It has been seen as something of a litmus test for the class action sector in the UK. Specialist outlet Law Gazette described the verdict as a "blow to the class action sector", with the decision seen to "dampen investors' enthusiasm for the fast-growing sector". However, Tim West, partner at law firm Ashurst, has said (via City AM) that "while an appeal is likely (especially on the question of BT's excessive pricing), it is unlikely that this will spell the end of the collective action regime". Law Gazette quoted Mohsin Patel, director of litigation finance broker Factor Risk Management, as saying that the CAT decision is "deeply regrettable" for many, but "should not detract from the fact that there have been a number of recent high-profile settlements in favour of consumers, which indicates that the CAT regime is creating a positive impact overall and affording redress where previously there was none". [GN] CALIFORNIA: Gomez Files Writ of Habeas Corpus to Cal. Appellate Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Nexis Gomez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the lawsuit styled In re Nexis Gomez on Habeas Corpus, Case No. C2401298 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., October 22, 2024). The case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District. Judge Benjamin Williams oversees the case. [BN] CALIFORNIA: May Face Class Action Over Military Aid to Israel ------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Abrams, writing for norcalpublicmedia.org, reports that people from across ten Northern California counties say they plan to file a class action lawsuit Thursday, December 7, against North Bay congressional representatives Mike Thompson and Jared Huffman. Why? It's because of the politicians' alleged votes for military aid to Israel. One of the plaintiffs in the planned class action lawsuit: North Bay resident Maria Barakat. "I'm a Lebanese and Palestinian American," Barakat said to KRCB News. "You know, it's been a long and painful year for a lot of us around this country, and people of conscience, and while the public protest may have quieted down in the last couple of months, folks have been organizing." That organizing has led Barakat and others to the courts, they said. "I'm part of a group called Taxpayers Against Genocide, and we are filing a lawsuit against our elected representatives here in the North Bay . . . for their support for genocide in Gaza," Barakat said. In May of this year, the International Court of Justice found Israel was committing "plausible" acts of genocide in Gaza, and ordered a halt to the aggression. The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes committed against the residents of Gaza. Barakat and Taxpayers Against Genocide said they see a direct link between the US Congress and the international cases. "We believe, as a class of about 500 taxpayers in the North Bay, that our representatives have exceeded their constitutional limitations on their tax and spend authority," Barakat said. "So when they voted in April 20th, 2024 to increase military aid to Israel by $26 billion, we believe that they exceeded their limitations on their authority." Barakat said the lawsuit is intended to perhaps set precedent. "We want the courts to declare, and for a judge to actually decree, that the causes of this action are proper, that this is an appropriate action for citizens to bring forward," Barakat said. She said Taxpayers Against Genocide alleges U.S. lawmakers violated their duty under international law. "That prohibits complicity in genocide," Barakat said. "We want an injunction restraining these representatives from providing military assistance or financing to Israel...so voting in favor of any additional allocations of taxpayer dollars as military aid to Israel, for example." A rally in support of the class action lawsuit is planned outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco. KRCB News has reached out to Congressmen Jared Huffman and Mike Thompson for comment, we will have more on this story in the coming days. [GN] CBDMD INC: Davis Class Suit Pending in C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ cbdMD Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending September 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 18, 2024, that the Davis class suit is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In December 2019, Cynthia Davis filed a purported collective and class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against cbdMD and certain of our competitors alleging violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Declaratory Relief. On March 4, 2021 the Court granted cbdMD's motion to stay the case until the FDA or Congress takes definitive action on the regulatory status of CBD and the case remains in this status as of this filing. The Company believes this matter will eventually be dismissed but there is no timeline on when the FDA or Congress will take action so the case is expected to be stayed indefinitely. cbdMD, Inc. operates as a pharmaceutical company. The Company offers vape oil, oil capsules, gummies, bath bombs, and companion box.[BN] CHARLOTTE TILBURY: Settles BIPA Class Action Lawsuit for $2.925MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Charlotte Tilbury Beauty agreed to pay $2.925 million to resolve claims it violated Illinois biometric privacy laws by collecting facial geometry scans from website visitors. The Charlotte Tilbury settlement benefits individuals who used a beauty technology tool or any other virtual try-on tool, including, but not limited to, "Charlotte's Virtual Try On," "Pro Skin Analysis," "Foundation Shade Finder," "Complexion Edit," "Highlight Shade Finder," "How To Apply," "Blush Finder" and "Skin Reader," on the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty website and/or mobile app in Illinois between Dec. 1, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2023. According to the class action lawsuit, Charlotte Tilbury Beauty collected facial geometry scans from website visitors through its virtual try-on tools without obtaining their consent or providing the required disclosures. Plaintiffs in the case say this practice violates Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act. Charlotte Tilbury is a beauty brand that offers a range of products, including makeup and skin care. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $2.925 million class action settlement to resolve these BIPA allegations. Under the Charlotte Tilbury settlement, class members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. According to the settlement website, each claimant is estimated to receive $700-$1,100. Exact payments will vary depending on the number of valid claims filed with the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty settlement and other factors. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Dec. 18, 2024. The final approval hearing for the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty settlement is scheduled for Feb. 26, 2025. Who's Eligible Illinois residents who used a beauty tech tool or any other virtual try-on tool on the Charlotte Tilbury Beauty website and/or mobile application between Dec. 1, 2019, and Aug. 31, 2023 Potential Award $700 to $1,100 (estimated) Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/02/2025 Case Name Halim v. Charlotte Tilbury Beauty Inc., et al., Case No. 2022-CH-11832, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Final Hearing 02/26/2025 Settlement Website www.IllinoisBeautySettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator PO Box 2735 Portland, OR 97208-2735 info@IllinoisBeautySettlement.com (844) 530-2230 Class Counsel Grace E Parasmo Yitzchak Lieberman PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW Alan Schwartz SCHWARTZ LAW PLLC Defense Counsel Aaron D Charfoos Adam M Reich PAUL HASTINGS LLP [GN] CICA COLLECTION: Soto Sues Over False Representations ----------------------------------------------------- Norma Iris Baez Soto, and all others similarly situated v. CICA COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.; INSURANCE COMPANIES ABC; JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, Case No. 3:24-cv-01586 (D.P.R., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought arises out of Defendant's unlawful and abusive debt collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (from now on, "FDCPA"), as a result of the Defendants' false, misleading, and unconscionable representations. Despite Plaintiff having fully satisfied the alleged consumer debt, prior to December 22, 2023, Defendant attempted to collect on the nonexistent debt through false, misleading, and unconscionable representations. In its collection letter, Defendant not only claimed Plaintiff owed an invalid balance but also threatened legal proceedings, including the imposition of attorney's fees and costs actions it had no lawful basis to pursue. These collection efforts, aimed at coercing payment of funds not owed, caused Plaintiff financial harm, emotional distress, and unnecessary expenses to retain legal counsel to address Defendant's improper demands. The FDCPA was enacted to prevent precisely these types of abusive and deceptive collection practices, which undermine consumers' financial stability and peace of mind, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a "consumer" as such term is defined by the FDCPA. CICA Collection Agency, Inc. is a Corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesus E. Batista Sanchez, Esq. William Rivera Velez, Esq. Carlos A. Ortiz Morales, Esq. Josef J. Pagan Maisonet, Esq. THE BATISTA LAW GROUP, PSC. P.O. Box 191059 San Juan, PR. 00919 Phone: (787) 620-2856 Facsimile: (787) 777-1589 Email: jeb@batistasanchez.com wrv@batistasanchez.com comlaw@gmail.com jjp@batistasanchez.com CITARELLA OPERATING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Citarella Operating LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09432 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Citarella Operating LLC owns and maintains Citarella.com, a commercial website that offers products and services for online sale, including gourmet foods. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com CNU OF TEXAS: Sends Unwanted Solicitation Texts, Callier Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRANDON CALLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CNU OF TEXAS, LLC DBA CASHNETUSA, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00391-LS (W.D. Tex., October 22, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Texas Business and Commerce Code. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending text messages to the cellular phone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote products or services without obtaining prior written express consent. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the personal privacy of the Plaintiff and Class members was invaded, the suit alleges. CNU of Texas, LLC, doing business as CASHNETUSA, is a subsidiary of Enova International, Inc. based in Dallas, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omar F. Darwich, Esq. THE DARWICH LAW FIRM, LLC 10921 Pellicano Dr., #100 El Paso, TX 79935 Telephone: (915) 671-2221 Email: omar@darwichlegal.com COAST ALUMINUM: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darrin Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COAST ALUMINUM, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-02129-AN (D. Ore., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Oregon wage and hour laws as a result of unpaid minimum and overtime wages. This action stems from Defendant's policies and practices of: failing to pay Plaintiff and Collective and Class Members overtime wages; failing to relieve Plaintiff and Class Members of all duties for 30 continuous minutes during their meal periods, and failing to pay compensate for non-compliant meal periods; unlawful deductions; failing to provide true and accurate itemized wage statements to Plaintiff and Class Members; and failing to timely pay Plaintiff and Class Members all wages due upon separation from employment. Throughout the relevant time period, Defendant regularly failed to pay Plaintiff, Class and Collective Members for all hours worked.1 Defendant regularly required Plaintiff, Class and Collective Members to perform work without compensation. For example, Plaintiff estimates that he worked approximately four hours of overtime per week that was not compensated by Defendant, including work performed during meal periods, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a truck driver in Oregon from November 2022 to February 2023, and March 2024 to April 25, 2024. The Defendant is a metal material supplier, that owns, operates, manages, and/or controls metal material facilities and their distribution across state lines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Esther L. Bylsma, Esq. Sandra Acosta Tello, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com sacostatello@schneiderwallace.com - and - Whitney Stark, Esq. ALBIES & STARK 1500 SW First Ave., Suite 1000 Portland, OR 97201 Phone: (503) 308-4770 Email: whitney@albiesstark.com COLE CV VINELAND: Cheli Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an individual Plaintiff, v. COLE CV VINELAND NJ, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, & RITE AID HDQTRS. CORP., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11031 (D.N.J., December 11, 2024) is a class action seeking for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The complaint says that the Defendants have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other similarly situated mobility impaired persons, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Property, as prohibited by the ADA. Cole CV Vineland NJ, LLC, owns a parcel of land which encompasses a place of public accommodation operated by Rite Aid Hdqtrs, Corp. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Ave Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Beranek Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ PAMELA BERANEK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC, Case No. 0:24-cv-08584 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 16, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and at least 914,138 Class Members' personally identifiable information and protected health information, including names and phone numbers, and including health condition, treatments, and prescription information. Between Feb. 16, 2024 and May 12, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored therein, causing widespread injuries to the Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). Although the Data Breach took place, at latest, prior to May 12, 2024, the Defendant failed to notify affected individuals that their Private Information was compromised until Dec. 11, 2024—diminishing Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address the increased, imminent risk of identity theft and other harms the Data Breach caused, the Plaintiff avers. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members suffered and will continue to suffer concrete injuries in fact, including (a) financial costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (b) loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; (c) actual identity theft and fraud; (d) loss of privacy; and (e) emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach, the suit asserts. To recover from the Defendant for these harms, the Plaintiff, on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class, brings claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of third-party contract, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment, to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information in its care. Connectoncall.com is a digital on-call answering service for healthcare providers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniati, Esq. Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 491-4665 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com mweekes@milberg.com CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR: Brown Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES BROWN, individually and for others similarly situated v. CONSOLIDATED NUCLEAR SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00495-KAC-DCP (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 16, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Consolidated Nuclear Security, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Brown and the other Putative Collective Members regularly worked more than 40 hours a week. But CNS did not pay Brown and the other Putative Collective Members overtime wages of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 a week, the suit says. Instead, CNS misclassified Brown and the other Putative Collective Members as exempt and purported to pay them on an hourly basis with straight time for overtime. CNS purported to pay Brown and the other Putative Collective Members an "ROT shift premium" for every hour worked and at the same rate for hours both under 40 and over 40, a "biweekly salary" for 40 hours in a week, and "Exempt OT" for each hour worked in excess of 40 a week at the same hourly rate as the "biweekly salary" divided by 80 hours. The purported "biweekly salary" CNS paid for the first 40 hours worked each week worked out to the same hourly rate as the "Exempt OT" paid for hours worked over 40 each week, the Plaintiff avers. In reality, CNS did not pay Brown and the other Putative Collective Members on a salary basis, but rather paid them by the hour. Ultimately, Brown and the other Putative Collective Members were paid the same hourly rate for each hour worked, the Plaintiff adds. Mr. Brown worked for CNS as Special Response Team (SRT) Captain from January 2015 through the end of September 2024. CNS "operates the Pantex Plant and Y-12 National Security Complex in support of the National Nuclear Security Administration."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison Joshua A. Frank BARRET JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 647-9242 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com - and - Michael A. Josephson Andrew W. Dunlap JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com CROSSROADS TRADING: Jenkins Sues Over Misleading Prices ------------------------------------------------------- SHEENA JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CROSSROADS TRADING CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10677 (C.D. Cal., December 11, 2024) seeks to enjoin the deceptive business practices of Crossroads Trading Co., Inc. and its misleading billing practices at its retail clothing stores. According to the complaint, the Defendant misrepresented the purpose of the surcharge to Plaintiff upon her request for a refund as a "mandatory" fee. Moreover, the Defendant purposely adds this surcharge instead of raising the prices on its goods in an effort to mislead consumers into thinking that their goods cost less than they actually do. Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Crossroads Trading Co., Inc. owns, operates, and manages stores throughout the country, including in California, Colorado, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Faces Blue Suit Over Private Info Disclosure --------------------------------------------------------------- DONNA BLUE, individually, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY HOSPITAL SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a CAPE FEAR VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00706-BO (E.D.N.C., December 11, 2024) arises out of Defendant's unlawful use of third-party tracking technologies by data brokers such as Meta and Google LLC to surreptitiously intercept and disclose its patients' private and protected communications, including communications concerning highly sensitive personal health information, to third parties without patients' knowledge or consent. The Plaintiff brings this action individually, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals, to recover for harms suffered and assert the following claims: (i) Violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; (ii) Negligence; (iii) Breach of Express Contract; (iv) Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (v) Breach of Implied Contract; (vi) Breach of Fiduciary Duty and (vii) Unjust Enrichment. Headquartered in Fayetteville, NC, Cumberland County Hospital System owns and operates numerous hospitals and urgent care centers throughout the state of North Carolina under the name Cape Fear Valley Health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 N Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Brandon M. Wise, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 833-4825 E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com - and - Andrew R. Tate, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP 235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 282-4806 E-mail: atate@peifferwolf.com - and - David S. Almeida, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Avenue Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (312) 576-3024 E-mail: david@almeidalawgroup.com DATANYZE LLC: Foley Sues Over Use of PII for Commercial Purposes ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAELA FOLEY, CORNELIUS LEWIS, ROBERT BURGY, JOHN SOOTS, and JAMES HURD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DATANYZE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-07396-YGR (N.D. Cal., October 23, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Civil Code, Nevada Right of Publicity Statute, Indiana Publicity Code, and the Alabama Right of Publicity Act. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of using the identities and other personal identifying information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals for commercial purposes without first obtaining consent, written or otherwise. The Defendant utilized their PII for the purpose of enticing users of its platform to enter into paid subscriptions for additional access to profiles contained in the platform. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiffs' and Class members' right of publicity was violated, says the suit. Datanyze, LLC is a provider of internet-based business search platform, headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: S. Chandler Visher, Esq. 268 Bush Street #4500 San Francisco, CA 94194 Telephone: (415) 901-0500 Facsimile: (415) 904-0504 Email: chandler@visherlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com wsolberg@andersonwanca.com DEXCOM INC: Court Consolidates Securities Cases With Alonzo Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert S. Huie of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California consolidates three lawsuits: CHARLENE ALONZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEXCOM INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01485-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal.); OAKLAND COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DEXCOM INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1804-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal.); and MATTHEW CARNES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEXCOM INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1809-RSH-VET (S.D. Cal.). Before the Court are four motions to consolidate, appoint lead counsel, and appoint lead plaintiff filed by Movants K. George Thampy, the Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association and Oakland County Employees' Retirement System (collectively, "Oakland County"), the Dexcom Investor Group ("Dexcom Group"), and the National Elevator Industry Pension Fund ("the Pension Fund"). The Movants request to consolidate three federal securities class actions, to be appointed as lead plaintiffs, and for their attorneys to be appointed as lead counsel in the consolidated case. Movants Thampy and Oakland County have since withdrawn or filed non oppositions to the motions to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Dexcom Group and the Pension Fund oppose each other's motions. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the motions presented appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants the motions to consolidate and grants the Pension Fund's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court denies all other competing motions. The instant actions are federal securities class actions brought on behalf of individuals, who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Dexcom securities (Alonzo v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1485-RSH-VET ("Alonzo"), Oakland County Employees' Retirement Systems et al. v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1804-RSH-VET ("Oakland") and Carnes v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1809-RSH-VET ("Carnes") (collectively, the "Related Actions")). Defendant Dexcom Inc. is an international company that develops, manufactures and distributes continuous glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management. Individual Defendants Kevin Sayer, Jereme Sylvain and Sean Christensen were Dexcom executives during the relevant time period. The Plaintiffs are Dexcom shareholders. They allege that between 2023 and 2024, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market through a course of conduct that artificially inflated the price of Dexcom's common stock. The Defendants' alleged misrepresentations were directed particularly to Dexcom's rollout of its G7 continuous glucose monitoring system. According to the Plaintiffs, the truth was later revealed through a press release announcing disappointing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2024. After the press release, the price of Dexcom's stock declined 40.66% in a single day. Movant the Dexcom Group consists of two individual investors—Thilo Sautter and Gang Bao--and the investment entities Mr. Sautter and Mr. Bao manage and oversee. Mr. Sautter is the Director of CUROS Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH ("CUROS"). Mr. Bao makes investments through his business Sunway Trading USA Inc. ("Sunway") and manages the investments of C-Liu Irrevocable Trust ("C-Liu"), a family trust. Movant the Pension Fund is a "multiemployer defined benefit pension plan managing more than $4 billion in assets for the purpose of paying benefits to eligible participants and beneficiaries under the terms of the National Elevator Industry Plan of Pension Benefits" based in Newton Square, Pennsylvania. The Alonzo action was filed on Aug. 21, 2024, the Oakland action was filed on Oct. 8, 2024, and the Carnes action was filed on Oct. 9, 2024. In all three, the Plaintiffs assert claims for: (1) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and (2) violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In addition to these class actions, there are two related ongoing derivative actions pending before this Court directed to similar subject matter--Silva v. Sayer, et al., 24cv1645-RSH VET and Malone v. Sayer, et al., 24cv1799-RSH-VET. The Related Actions are all class action lawsuits directed to the Defendants' dissemination of allegedly false and misleading statements, particularly with respect to Dexcom's launch of its G7 continuous glucose monitoring system. The causes of action asserted in all three actions are identical. No party opposes consolidation. Although there are minor differences in class periods and Defendants, the Court does not find that these differences outweigh the interests of judicial economy served by consolidation. The Court concludes consolidation is appropriate under these circumstances. The Alonzo action--the first of the Related Actions--was filed on Aug. 21, 2024. Notice was published on the same day in Global Newswire by the law firm Levi & Korinsky, LLP. The notice identified the purported class period and claims and advised putative class members that they had 60 days from the date of notice--until Oct. 21, 2024--to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. Each of the Movants filed their motions to be appointed as lead plaintiff within the allotted 60-day period. For these reasons, the Court concludes the notice requirement has been met and the Movants have satisfied the statutory procedural requirements. The Court finds that for purposes of lead plaintiff appointment, the Pension Fund has made a sufficient prima facie showing of typicality and adequacy. The Pension Fund is a single sophisticated, institutional investor with experience participating as a lead plaintiff in at least one other securities class action. Judge Huie notes that there is no indication of any conflicts between the Pension Fund and other class members. Nor is there any evidence that the Pension Fund is subject to any unique defenses. None of the other Movants have submitted or pointed to any evidence rebutting the adequacy of the Pension Fund's representation or the typicality of its claims. For these reasons, the Court appoints the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. The Pension Fund has selected and retained Robbins Geller LLP. In light of the firm's lengthy and substantial experience in securities class action litigations, the Court approves the Pension Fund's choice of Robbins Geller LLP has lead counsel. For these reasons, the Court grants the Movant's motions for consolidation. The following cases are consolidated for all purposes, subject to the terms of this Order, under Case No. 24-cv-1485-RSH-VET (the "Consolidated Action"): Alonzo v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1485-RSH-VET, Oakland County Employees' Retirement Systems, et al. v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1804-RSH-VET and Carnes v. Dexcom Inc., et al., 24cv1809 RSH-VET. Judge Huie rules that every pleading filed in the Consolidated Action will bear the following caption: IN RE: DEXCOM, INC. CLASS ACTION SECURITIES LITIGATION, Lead Case No.: 24-cv-1485-RSH-VET. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS. All future documents filed in connection with the Consolidated Action will be filed under Lead Case No. 24-cv-1485-RSH-VET. All documents previously filed and/or served in the Related Actions will be deemed a part of the record in the Consolidated Action. The Court grants the Pension Fund's motion for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and appoints the Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and Rob Robbins Geller LLP as lead counsel in the Consolidated Action. The Court denies all other competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Pension Fund has to file a consolidated complaint on Dec. 27, 2024. The Defendants will respond to the consolidated complaint by no later than Jan. 17, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mu852brw from PacerMonitor.com. DIRECT FUNDING NOW: Yammine Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Direct Funding Now, LLC. The case is styled as Dominique Yammine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Direct Funding Now, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02756 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Direct Funding Now -- https://www.directfundingnow.com/ -- approach small business financing differently by offering tailored options, minimal stress, and expert guidance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com DISCORD INC: Faces Hulett Suit Over Automatic Renewal Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA HULETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISCORD, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-620716 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 17, 2024) challenges Discord's cancellation practices with respect to its automatic renewal subscriptions. The complaint asserts that Discord's automatic renewal and continuous service offers violate California's Automatic Renewal Law which requires companies like Discord to provide customers with a means to cancel their subscriptions: (i) by using a "cost-effective, timely, and easy-to-use mechanism for cancellation," or (ii) "exclusively online, at will, and without engaging any further steps that obstruct or delay the consumer's ability to terminate the automatic renewal or continuous service immediately." As a result of these ARL violations, Discord has violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff’s complaint further alleges that Pluralsight violated the ARL by charging him without first providing information on how to cancel the subscription. The record also indicates that consumers signing up for trial subscriptions were not specifically given instructions on how to cancel before payment. This amply satisfies the UCL requirement that an unlawful business practice be any violation of other laws. In addition, because Discord's automatic renewal "business practices" violate the ARL, they also violate California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff seeks to obtain actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution, punitive damages, and other appropriate relief as a result of these violations. On Oct. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased a subscription called "3x Server Boost Monthly, Nitro Monthly" from Discord's website (https://discord.com/) for $20.46 per month, from her home in Riverside County, California, for consumer purposes. Discord is an instant messaging and VoIP social platform which allows communication through voice calls, video calls, text messaging, and media.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com E-TRADE SECURITIES: Faces Simmons Suit Over Cash Sweep Program -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS M. SIMMONS, Individually, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. E-TRADE SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY and MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-11341 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2024) arises out of E-Trade's drastic under-payment of interest to its own clients in its cash sweep program. According to the complaint, E-Trade underpaid its clients in violation of its fiduciary and contractual duties in order to enrich itself at its clients' expense. Rather than pay its clients a "reasonable" rate of interest on their cash that properly took into account market conditions or other benchmark interest rates, as it was required to do, E-Trade instead paid miniscule rates to its clients while it earned hundreds of millions of dollars on that cash due to rising interest rates. In a typical cash sweep program for a brokerage client, the brokerage firm moves uninvested cash from the client's brokerage account into an interest-bearing account that generates returns for the client. When E-Trade sweeps its clients' cash through its bank cash sweep program, E-Trade uses that cash to generate returns for itself, due to the spread between the interest income that E-Trade earns on the cash and the amount of interest that it pays its clients. E-Trade is required to act as a fiduciary in the best interests of its clients, including within the scope of its agency relationship with those clients in connection with its cash sweep program. That includes a duty to put its clients' interests ahead of its own when creating and implementing the cash sweep program, as well as recommending and/or making investments or conducting transactions for them, including transactions within the scope of its cash sweep program. Rather than act properly as a fiduciary in the best interests of E-Trade's account holders or fulfill its contractual and implied covenant obligations to its clients, E-Trade used its clients' funds to enrich itself at their expense. The Plaintiff Simmons is a resident of California who maintains a Roth Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") with E-Trade. In his capacity as trustee of the Thomas M. Simmons Living Trust, Mr. Simmons also maintains a traditional brokerage account with E-Trade. Mr. Simmons's cash balances held in his E- Trade accounts were swept into E-TRADE's cash sweep programs throughout the period his accounts were open, and he received unreasonably low interest on those deposits. E- Trade Securities is a registered broker-dealer, and a wholly owned subsidiary of E- Trade Capital Management, LLC, an investment adviser registered with the SEC. E-Trade operated as a subsidiary of Trade Financial Corporation from the beginning of the Class Period until Trade Financial Corporation's acquisition by Morgan Stanley on October 2, 2020. Morgan Stanley provides financial consulting, wealth management, and advisory services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Scarlato, Esq. Alan L. Rosca, Esq. Jonathan A. Korte, Esq. ROSCA SCARLATO LLC 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (216) 946-7070 E-mail: pscarlato@rscounsel.law arosca@rscounsel.law jkorte@rscounsel.law - and - Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Adam H. Wierzbowski, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com johnr@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com adam@blbglaw.com EAGLE FAMILY: Ortiz Suit Removed to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carlos Ortiz II, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EAGLE FAMILY FOODS GROUP LLC, Case No. 815459/2024E was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-09861. According to allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff and the members of the putative class he purports to represent allege false and deceptive representations of Eagle Foods' "Movie Theater Butter" popcorn product in violation of New York's General Business Law.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com The Defendants are represented by: Ashley B. Akapo, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 37th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: 212.822.2228 Fax: 212.905.6404 Email: Ashley.Akapo@akerman.com ELIZABETH STREET: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- NANA QUEENIE LAWRENCE v. ELIZABETH STREET FEE OWNER LLC and LE LABO HOLDING INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-09717 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 17, 2024) is a class action alleging pervasive, ongoing, and inexcusable disability discrimination by the Defendants. In this action, the Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief, as well as monetary damages and attorney's fees, costs, and expenses, to redress Defendants' unlawful disability discrimination against the Plaintiff, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff also alleges a claim for negligence. The Defendants are vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of their employees and agents for the alleged conduct. The Plaintiff is an adult female confined to a wheelchair. The Plaintiff is incapable of moving around outside of her home without assistance and a wheelchair. The Defendants own, lease, lease to, operate, and/or control a place of public accommodation that allegedly violates ADA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica E. Soultanian-Braunstein, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC NANA QUEENIE LAWRENCE 116 Jackson Avenue Syosset, NY 11791 Telephone: (516) 280-3008 E-mail: JSB@BellLG.com ENTRATA INC: Trimble Suit Removed to D. Maryland ------------------------------------------------ The case is styled as Kaitlyn Trimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENTRATA, INC., Case No. C-16-CV-24-005176 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince Georges County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-03710-RDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Consumer Credit for Class Action Fairness Act. Entrata -- https://www.entrata.com/ -- provides software to the property management industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina Marie Rose-Smith, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 1900 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 346-4185 Fax: (202) 346-4444 Email: srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com EVERWISE CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Wolf Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY WOLF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EVERWISE CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02244-JMS-MKK (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2024) addresses Defendant's alleged illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing -- without consent -- the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information to third parties. The third parties includes Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta (Facebook), Google, LLC, Microsoft Corp. RfiHub, Neustar Marketing, TikTok, HubSpot, Semcasting, Boomtrain/Zeta Global, Twilio Segment, Segmint, DoubleClick Ads, TVSquared, Facebook Events, Media.net, Pinterest Tag, LiveIntent, Adnxs/AppNexus, Adobe Audience Manager, Chimney, AtData (TowerData), Pubmatic, Tremor Hub by Taptica, LiveRamp - Arbor.io (Pippio), Eyeota, AdTheorent, HotJar, Everest Technologies, Simpli.fi, StackAdapt, Google Analytics, Google Tag Manager, and possibly others. Everwise is a full-service financial institution which provides "banking solutions including checking accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, auto loans, home equity loans, HELOCs and much more" to customers across the United States, including in Indiana. To provide these services, Everwise operates and encourages its customers to use its website, www.everwisecu.com, on which customers can access their account information, access Everwise's financial services, and apply for financial products like credit cards. Despite its unique position as a trusted credit union, Everwise used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers’ and Customers' Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of financial services entirely without their knowledge or authorization, says the suit. Through these trackers, Everwise disclosed and continues to disclose Personal and Financial Information that Customers input into and accessed on Everwise's Website. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of action of Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Invasion Of Privacy (Intrusion Upon Seclusion); Invasion Of Privacy (Disclosure Of Private Facts); Breach Of Express And Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment (As Alternative To Contract Claims); Bailment; Declaratory Judgment; Breach Of Confidence; Conversion; Violation of the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act; Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (Unauthorized Divulgence by Electronic Communications Service); Violation of Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violation of the Indiana Wiretap Act; and Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiff Wolf is a natural person and citizen of Indiana, where he intends to remain. The Plaintiff Wolf applied for a credit card from Everwise's in early 2024 and is a victim of Defendant's unauthorized Disclosure of Personal and Financial Information. Everwise is a financial institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com eschiller@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IN 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com EVOLVE BANK: Faces Tonner Class Suit Over Mismanagement of Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL TONNER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, EVOLVE BANCORP, INC., AMG NATIONAL TRUST BANK, LINEAGE BANK, and AMERICAN BANK, N.A., Case No. 1:24-cv-03509-NRN (D. Colo., Dec. 19, 2024) arises from the negligent monitoring and mismanagement of funds belonging to the Plaintiff and Class Members who entrusted cash deposits to one or more of the four Defendants via use of various financial technology platforms. In this case, Fintechs used Defendants for their banking services, and Defendants in turn used a third-party company named Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. to open accounts, process transactions, and manage account statements and ledgers for any FinTech companies working with them, and ultimately for their end users. The Defendants' use of Synapse and failure to adequately monitor and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' funds in their control led to significant ledger discrepancies in account balances. These irregularities were materially inaccurate and, as a result, could not be used as the basis for distributing funds to the end users. As a result of Defendants' acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class Members had their funds lost, stolen, or misplaced, while no single Defendant took responsibility for their failures. Further, Defendants have refused to return funds to these end users, leaving thousands of customers, like Plaintiff and Class Members, without access to their funds, says the suit. Plaintiff Paul Tonner is a resident and citizen of the State of Illinois. He was present in Illinois at the time he signed up for an account with the FinTech Yotta on January 5, 2021, and deposited funds. Plaintiff Tonner attempted to withdraw his funds from Yotta on May 9, 2024, and his withdrawal was cancelled. At the time he requested the withdrawal, Plaintiff Tonner's balance showed $1,543.55. Months later, the Plaintiff Tonner received $0.04 in reconciliation. EVOLVE BANK & TRUST, formerly First State Bank, is an American bank headquartered in West Memphis, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Dylan J. Gould, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com dgould@msdlegal.com EXCELLENCE HOME: Silva Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Eda Elia Valladares Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE EXCELLENCE HOME SERVICES LLC and EXCELLENCE COMMERCIAL CLEANING SOLUTIONS LLC and JOHAYRA MACIAS, as an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-08713 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff regularly worked 47 hours per week from in or around March 2024 until in or around December 2024, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half for her hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. Further, Plaintiff was not compensated at all by the Defendants for her last 5 days of work. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cleaner and housekeeper while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from March 2024 until December 2024. THE EXCELLENCE HOME SERVICES LLC, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of 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 Phone: 718-263-9591 FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: McAtee Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Jennifer McAtee, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as: Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-24-00122 was removed from the Beckham County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01340-J to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as Great Plains Regional Medical Center (GPRMC) -- https://gprmc-ok.com/ -- provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Inpatient Rehab program designed with your safety as our top priority.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James Burl Hulin, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (254) 760-0021 Email: jakehulin@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: McBrayer Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert McBrayer, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as: Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-24-00118 was removed from the Beckham County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01341-HE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as Great Plains Regional Medical Center (GPRMC) -- https://gprmc-ok.com/ -- provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Inpatient Rehab program designed with your safety as our top priority.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Amanda B. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: James Burl Hulin, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (254) 760-0021 Email: jakehulin@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: Skinner Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Brian Skinner, individually on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as: Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-24-00124 was removed from the Beckham County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01342-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as Great Plains Regional Medical Center (GPRMC) -- https://gprmc-ok.com/ -- provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Inpatient Rehab program designed with your safety as our top priority.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Amanda B. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: James Burl Hulin, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (254) 760-0021 Email: jakehulin@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com FARMERS UNION HOSPITAL: Vanspyker Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Jake Vanspyker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as: Great Plains Regional Medical Center, Case No. CJ-24-00121 was removed from the Beckham County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-01343-JD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Farmers Union Hospital Association doing business as Great Plains Regional Medical Center (GPRMC) -- https://gprmc-ok.com/ -- provides a comprehensive, multidisciplinary Inpatient Rehab program designed with your safety as our top priority.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: Kennedy Marie Brian, Esq. William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: (405) 235-1560 Email: kpb@federmanlaw.com wbf@federmanlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James Burl Hulin, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (254) 760-0021 Email: jakehulin@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com FAT BOYZ BURRITO: Andasol Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Abisai Martinez Andasol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FAT BOYZ BURRITO BAR INC., HOSAM OTHMAN and RAMZI OTHMAN, as individuals, Case No. 2:24-cv-08672 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiff worked approximately 98 hours per week from December 2018 until December 2019; approximately 93 hours per week from January 2020 until December 2020; approximately 65 to 74 hours per week from January 2021 until December 2023; and approximately 67.5 hours per week, from January 2024 until November 2024, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants. FAT BOYZ BURRITO BAR INC., is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of 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 Phone: 718-263-9591 FI9 COMPLIANCE: Mijangos Files Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against FI9 Compliance, LLC. The case is captioned as BLAKE MIJANGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FI9 COMPLIANCE, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02294-JWH-KES (C.D. Cal., October 22, 2024). The Plaintiff brings this personal injury claims against the Defendant. FI9 Compliance, LLC is a provider of employer solutions based in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com FIVE LITTLE MONKEYS: Cohen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Little Monkeys, LLC. The case is styled as Shamayah Cohen, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Five Little Monkeys, LLC, Case No. 24CV103840 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., Dec. 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Five Little Monkeys, LLC -- https://www.5littlemonkeys.com/ -- provides a unique selection of creative toys for imaginative minds in a fun and friendly environment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com FORBES MEDIA: Collects Website Visitors' Data, Berman Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DOMENICA BERMAN and ABYGAEL PIEHL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FORBES MEDIA LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-09287 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2024) lawsuit concerns Forbes's surreptitious collection and sharing of data from visitors to its website, Forbes.com in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Without first obtaining consent, Forbes uses various trackers on Forbes.com to collect and share information about its visitors—including their IP addresses and other unique identifiers—with third parties, the lawsuit says. These trackers include, but are not limited to, the LinkedIn Insight Tag, the Bing Universal Event Tracking ("UET") Tag, and the Adnx Tracker, developed by LinkedIn, Microsoft, and Xandr, respectively. The collected information is used by Forbes and third parties to optimize targeted advertising campaigns. The Trackers are "pen registers" under section 638.50(b) of CIPA because they record "routing, addressing, or signaling information" transmitted by the devices of Forbes.com visitors. The Trackers are also "trap and trace devices" under CIPA section 638.50(c) because they "capture the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication." Forbes allegedly repeatedly violated CIPA section 638.51(a) by installing and using the Trackers without a court order, the suit alleges. Forbes is a global media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Krysta Kauble Pachman, Esq. Eliza Finley, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com efinley@susmangodfrey.com FROEDTERT HEALTH: Class Certification Granted in Lutz Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as NICHOLE LUTZ, Plaintiff, v. FROEDTERT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-974 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The court finds that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, there are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and plaintiff Nichole Lutz will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. It further finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The first subclass is defined as: All hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Froedtert who, for the time period after November 7, 2021, to the present, during any workweek worked over 40 hours and received overtime pay at a rate lower than time and a half the regular rate earned for the workweek. The second subclass is defined as: All hourly, non-exempt employees employed by Froedtert who, for the time period after November 7, 2021, to the present, during any workweek worked over 40 hours and also received pay for working on a holiday, in that same workweek, that was computed at an hourly rate lower than time and a half the regular rate earned that same workweek. Attorney Yingtao Ho is appointed as class counsel. Notice to the class members in the form proposed by the parties is approved. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xkGYSL FS FIRST: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. FS FIRST HOLDINGS LLC, a Florida Limited liability Company and MONKEY JUNGLE INC., a Florida For Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-25044 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2024) is a class action seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 12181, the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff often visits the commercial property and tourist attraction business located within the commercial property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately 8 miles (or about 20 minutes) from his residence and is near other business the frequents as a patron. He plans to return to the commercial property and tourist attraction business within two months from the date of the filing of this Complaint. Mr. Pardo has very limited use of his hands and cannot operate any mechanisms which require tight grasping or twisting of the wrist. He has lower paraplegia, which inhibits him from walking or otherwise ambulating without the use of a wheelchair. He additionally has limitations involving his arms and hands. He is limited in his major life activities by such, including but not limited to walking, standing, grabbing, grasping and/or pinching. FS First owns, operates and/or oversees the subject commercial property with a tenant business therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. Monkey Jungle owns, operates and oversees the commercial tourist attraction business within this commercial property, to include all areas open to the public to its tourist attraction business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-Mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com jr@ajperezlawgroup.com GLASSES USA INC: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Glasses USA, Inc. a Delaware entity d/b/a WWW.GLASSESUSA.COM, Case No. BCV-24-103643 was removed from the Superior Court Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-10987 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Glasses USA, Inc. -- https://www.glassesusa.com/ -- is the premier online retailer of prescription eyeglasses and sunglasses.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Rebekah S. Guyon, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 586-7716 Fax: (310) 586-0225 Email: guyonr@gtlaw.com GRAMMER LOGISTICS: Illegally Deducts Drivers' Pay, Beard Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAQUAN BEARD and ALLEN STEMBRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GRAMMER LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-02240-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., Dec. 19, 2024) alleges that Grammer takes deductions from the Plaintiff's and other delivery drivers' pay in violation of the Indiana Wage Payment Act and the New Jersey Wage Payment law. According to the complaint, although Grammer classifies its delivery drivers, including the Plaintiffs, as independent contractors, Grammer retains control and actually controls the manner and means of every material aspect of its drivers' work obligations. Daquan Beard resides in Newark, New Jersey. Beard worked as a New Jersey based delivery driver for Grammer between July 2021 and January 2024. Allen Stembridge resides in Avenel, New Jersey Stembridge worked as a New Jersey based delivery driver for Grammer between September 2022 and April 2024. Grammer is a delivery company headquartered in Indiana that operates delivery facilities in Port Reading, New Jersey. Grammer delivers hazardous materials, including propane, butane and other commodities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq. MACEY SWANSON LLP 429 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 204 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-2345 Facsimile: (317) 637-2369 E-mail: jmacey@maceylaw.com - and - Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Telephone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 E-mail: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com - and - Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St. Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994 5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com GREAT EATS: Figueroa Sues Over Unlawful Wages Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hernandez Figueroa and Clara Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Great Eats Hospitality LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-02325 (E.D. Va., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought against Defendant as a result of its unlawful practices that deprive its employees--including Plaintiffs and other employees like Plaintiffs--of the wages rightfully owed to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Minimum Wage Act ("VMWA"), and the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"). Instead of paying its servers the full minimum wage required by the FLSA and the VMWA, Defendant attempted to take credit for the tips its servers earned from customers to supplement its servers' wages and meet its obligation under the FLSA and VMWA to pay the required minimum wages under those Acts. This method of paying tipped employees less than required minimum wage and relying on tips servers receive from customers to meet the minimum wage requirement is commonly referred to as taking a "tip credit," says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to work as a server. The Defendant owns and operates dining establishments known as Zandra's Taqueria in Manassas, Virginia and Haymarket, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Tucker, Esq. TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC 690 Berkmar Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Phone: (833) 388-2537 Fax: (833) 388-2537 Email: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com - and - Drew N. Herrmann, Esq. Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq. HERRMANN LAW, PLLC 801 Cherry St., Suite 2365 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Phone: 817-479-9229 Fax: 817-840-5102 Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com pamela@herrmannlaw.com HANLEY CENTER: Colbert Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Carla Colbert, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Hanley Center Foundation, Inc., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, Case No. 9:24-cv-81569-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought against Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective members, all of whom regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, were employed as PS or similar by Defendants. Further, Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked more than 40 hours per workweek without receiving the proper overtime pay for all their overtime hours worked. Throughout the relevant period, it has been Defendants' policy, pattern, or practice to require, suffer, or permit the Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective members to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek without paying them overtime wages for all overtime hours worked. Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, that the FLSA requires it to pay the Plaintiff and the Putative FLSA Collective members an overtime premium for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Prevention Specialist ("PS") from October 2, 2022, through March 12, 2024, in a hybrid position for Defendant. HANLEY is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation with its principal place of business located in West Palm Beach, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com HIGH HOOK LLC: Morgan FLSA Suit Removed to D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Sylviarose Morgan, Brenna Miller, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. High Hook LLC doing business as: Buoys on the Boulevard, Stephanie Boothe, Charles Weldon Boyd, Case No. 2024-CP-26-07515 was removed from the Horry County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-07525-JD to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hook LLC doing business as Buoys on the Boulevard -- https://www.buoysontheboulevard.com/ -- is a bright oceanfront seafood & burger restaurant with veranda tables, a happy hour & live music.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa Poe Davis, Esq. KELAHER CONNELL AND CONNOR PO Drawer 14547 Surfside Beach, SC 29587 Phone: (843) 238-5648 Email: ldavis@classactlaw.net - and - William James Luse, Esq. WILLIAM J. LUSE LAW OFFICE 1601 Oak Street, Suite 201 Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Phone: (843) 455-6049 Email: bill@getlusenow.com The Defendant is represented by: James Burl Hulin, Esq. Larry D. Ottaway, Esq. FOLIART HUFF OTTAWAY & BOTTOM 201 Robert S Kerr Ave., 12th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (254) 760-0021 Email: jakehulin@oklahomacounsel.com larryottaway@oklahomacounsel.com HOME DEPOT: Faces Chism Class Suit Over Accessibility Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CHISM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC., NEW HOME DEPOT PRODUCT AUTHORITY, LLC, HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 24STCV33076 (Cal. Super., Dec. 16, 2024) alleges that the defendants are in violation of the anti-discrimination state statutes of California, Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Code and California Disabled Persons Act. On Sept. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff patronized the Home Depot located at 1675 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA to purchase goods and suffered discrimination as a result of being denied full and equal access. Specifically, this store denied the Plaintiff equal access because it did not provide an accessible parking lot and/or restroom. In an attempt to avoid litigation, the Plaintiff provided notice and the opportunity to cure to Defendants. On Sept. 25, 2024, the Plaintiff sent a letter to the store manager of the 1675 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles Home Depot location informing him/her that this store is not accessible to him, that he was aware of similar accessibility barriers at other Home Depot locations, and asking that these problems be fixed within 30 days. The Plaintiff received no response to his Sept. 25, 2024, letter, the lawsuit says. As a result of that failure to remedy existing barriers to accessibility, Plaintiff and others similarly situated have been denied access to the benefits of the goods, services, programs, facilities, and activities of Defendants' stores, and have otherwise been discriminated against and have suffered damages caused by Defendants' accessibility violations, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of himself, and injunctive relief on behalf of the putative Class who has patronized or would like to patronize the Defendants' stores. Mr. Chism is a paraplegic and requires a wheelchair to move about. Home Depot is a home improvement retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH 9465 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 300 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 HOPKINSVILLE KY OPCO: Hollis Sues Over Unpaid Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hollis, individually and on behalf of those similarly-situated v. HOPKINSVILLE KY OPCO, LLC d/b/a BRADFORD HEIGHTS NURSING AND REHABILITATION, and CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT KY, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00191-BJB (W.D. Ky., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA") as a result of the Defendants unpaid compensations. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours per week, but, because of his misclassification, Plaintiff was paid nothing for his overtime work. Instead, Plaintiff was paid the same amount--his salary --for his work, without regard to the amount of work he performed and without regard to the amount of overtime work he performed. Throughout his employment, Plaintiff regularly clocked in and out using a timeclock at Defendant's facility. Defendants regularly reviewed the timesheets that were generated as a result of employees' use of the timeclock, including regularly reviewing Plaintiff's timesheet. Plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Bradford Heights working at a nursing home in Hopkinsville, Kentucky for over three years prior to his termination in the fall of 2024. Bradford Heights is a for-profit Kentucky limited liability company; upon information and belief.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 213-1303 Email: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com HORIZON HEALTH: Appeals Court Certifies Nicole Ruest Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Magee of CBC News reports that a class action lawsuit alleging women were improperly given a labour-inducing drug by a nurse in Moncton has been certified by New Brunswick's top court. The Court of Appeal ruled Thursday, December 19, that the case filed in 2019 against Horizon Health Network and former Moncton Hospital nurse Nicole Ruest can move ahead. The decision overturns a lower court ruling, saying Court of King's Bench Chief Justice Tracey DeWare made errors in her 2023 decision to not certify the case. Certification is a procedural step before a class action lawsuit can proceed. "The Court of Appeal's decision is wonderful news for Jayde Scott and the other class members to receive just before Christmas," John McKiggan, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said in an emailed statement Friday, December 20. Scott is the representative plaintiff of the class action, alleging Ruest improperly gave her oxytocin while she was admitted to the Moncton Hospital's labour and delivery unit. The drug is used to induce contractions, but Scott alleges Ruest administered it without her knowledge, resulting in an emergency caesarian section. Ruest worked in the hospital's labour and delivery unit from September 2010 to March 2019. She was fired after Horizon carried out an internal investigation. McKiggan has said in court that as many as 200 women have contacted the lawyers to voice similar complaints. The appeal court ruling notes that statistical evidence showed an unusually high number of emergency deliveries at the hospital during the period in question. "The women who are part of this class will now have a path to get the answers they deserve," McKiggan said. "They will finally be able to learn how this terrible situation was allowed to happen and get some measure of accountability." A class action is a civil lawsuit where one or more people, serving as representative plaintiffs, can sue on behalf of a larger group, or class, alleging common issues instead of each person filing separate lawsuits. DeWare ruled in November 2023 that she was unable to conclude there was an identifiable class with common issues that could be dealt with as a class action case. Her decision was appealed. The decision by justices Ernest Drapeau, Kathleen Quigg and Charles LeBlond says DeWare carried out an improper analysis, resulting in errors in her ruling. They ordered that the class action be certified. Horizon and Ruest's lawyers have yet to comment on the decision and whether they will appeal the decision at the Supreme Court of Canada. [GN] HUMBLE BUNDLE: Hasani Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- Safiullah Hasani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Humble Bundle, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09449 (S.D.N.Y., December 11, 2024) accuses the Defendant of intentional disclosure of it website users' personally identifiable information--including a record of every video game purchased by the user to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website and applications use first-party and third-party cookies, software development kits, pixels, Facebook's Business Tools, including Advanced Matching and Conversion API, and related tracking tools to purposely track, record, and transmit its individuals interactions with Defendant's website. Defendant knowingly installed and used these tools, and it controlled which data was transmitted to unrelated third parties. In conjunction with this, Defendant purposefully and specifically chose to: (1) track and record consumers viewed video media, (2) disclose that information to Facebook alongside its consumers individual Facebook ID and other persistent identifiers, and (3) did this without knowledge or consent of consumers via surreptitious technology. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Humble Bundle, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates its online platform and mobile application, including www.humblebundle.com. The website offers video games that can be purchased and downloaded on consumers' computers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Benjamin Rozenshteyn, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com ben@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com JAY PETROLEUM: Miles Sues Over Inaccessible Facilities ------------------------------------------------------ Michael Miles, individually, and on behalf of individuals similarly situated v. Jay Petroleum Inc., an Indiana corporation for profit, Case No. 3:24-cv-02230 (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 21, 2024), is brought pursuant to the enforcement provision of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") as a result of the Defendant's inaccessible facilities. On December 13, 2024, and on a dozen or more prior occasions, Plaintiff was a customer at Defendant's property, and he plans to return to the property to avail himself of the goods and services offered to the public at the property. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers at the subject property. The barriers to access at the property have endangered his safety and protected access to Defendant's place of public accommodation. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by the ADA. The Defendant has discriminated and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has patronized Defendant's property previously as a place of public accommodation. The Defendant Jay Petroleum Inc. owns and/or operates a Marathon Gas station known as "Findlay Party Mart."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Offices of Unit C 6800 W. Central Ave., Suite C-1 Toledo, OH 43617 Phone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 Monroe, MI (734) 240-0848 Email: obdjr@owendunnlaw.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Suit Over Ineffective Meds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Lloyd of ABC News reports that a class action has been filed against Johnson & Johnson accusing it of selling medicines known to be ineffective. If the action is successful, anyone who bought the products in question since 2005 could be compensated. What's next? The Therapeutic Goods Administration said it will continue to monitor the outcomes of the US Food and Drug Administration review and consultation in regards to oral phenylephrine. An Australian law firm has filed a class action against global pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson accusing it of selling medicines known to be ineffective. Lawyers at JGA Saddler allege the company falsely stated medications such as Codral Day and Night, Sudafed PE and Benedryl PE relieve congestion. The action relates to tablets containing phenylephrine, a substance which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last year declared was not an effective nasal decongestant when taken in tablet form. Johnson & Johnson's advertising for Codral Day and Night states, "Phenylephrine helps to relieve blocked and runny noses". Similarly, the packaging for Sudafed PE refers to phenylephrine as a "nasal decongestant" and the medication's website says it "provides fast, powerful relief from sinus pressure and nasal congestion". However, Brisbane ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr Jo-Lyn McKenzie said, “The data around phenylephrine is that it's not effective when it's taken orally". Dr McKenzie said phenylephrine was an effective decongestant when used as a nasal spray. "It's incredibly effective when it's applied inside the nose," she said. Dr Mckenzie said the problem with phenylephrine was that it was inactivated when swallowed and didn't have enough clinical effect. She said the substance began to be used in cold and flu medication after regulations were introduced to make it harder to buy pseudoephedrine. In 2006, pseudoephedrine was taken off the shelves and put behind the counter at pharmacies, because it was being used to produce methamphetamine and sold as the drug ice. When the sale of tablets containing pseudoephedrine was restricted, Johnson & Johnson replaced the ingredient with phenylephrine so they could continue selling the products at pharmacies, supermarkets and petrol stations. Dr McKenzie said the result was people looking for relief from congestion were choosing ineffective products when better products were available. "They use that treatment as an alternative to medications that do work," she said. Lawyer Rebecca Jancauskas said consumers expected these products to alleviate common symptoms of colds and flu, such as a blocked nose or sinus congestion. "Many consumers report to us feeling duped, feeling misled by a company that they've trusted for many years." Ms Jancauskas said many of the products containing phenylephrine were little more effective than paracetamol, which some of the products also contain. A packet of 100 500mg paracetamol tablets sells for around $15. A 48-pack of Codral PE Day and Night which contains 500mg of paracetamol costs $22.99 at a major Australian online pharmacy. Law firm JGA Saddler is asking any Australia who purchased a Johnson & Johnson oral medication containing phenylephrine to register for the class action. If the action is successful, anyone who bought the products in question since 2005 could be compensated. Ms Jancauskas said consumers could receive the value of the products they purchased during that period of time. "This proceeding is about holding Johnson & Johnson accountable for selling products that don't, and have never, done what they say they'll do on the packet," she said. "There's a risk that the public loses confidence in medications, when they find out that trusted brand names like Codral, Sudafed and Benadryl are ineffective and that the claims that have been made are simply unsubstantiated." A spokesperson for the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) said they were aware of last year's proposal by the US FDA to remove oral phenylephrine for symptomatic relief of nasal congestion from over-the-counter use. "If the FDA proposal is adopted, the supply of oral phenylephrine products for nasal de-congestion in the US would need to cease," the spokesperson said. The TGA noted that the proposed FDA action was "based on efficacy concerns not safety concerns". "At this time, while the TGA does not have current plans to conduct a review of the effectiveness of oral phenylephrine, we will continue to monitor the outcomes of the FDA review and consultation." The ABC has contacted Johnson & Johnson for comment. The full list of products included in the class action: -- Codral Cold & Flu -- Codral Cold & Flu + Dry Cough -- Codral Day & Night -- Codral Day & Night + Dry Cough -- Codral Night -- Codral Plus Mucus + Cold & Flu -- Codral Cold & Flu (powder sachet) -- Codral Dry Cough + Cold (liquid medicine) -- Codral Cold & Flu + Mucus Cough (powder sachet) -- Codral Mucus Cough + Cold (liquid medicine) -- Codral Cold & Flu + Mucus Cough -- Codral Decongestant -- Sudafed PE Nasal Decongestant -- Sudafed PE Sinus + Allergy & Pain Relief -- Sudafed PE Sinus + Anti-inflammatory Pain Relief -- Sudafed PE Sinus + Pain Relief -- Sudafed PE Sinus + Pain Relief Day + Night -- Sudafed PE Night -- Benadryl PE Dry Cough & Nasal Congestion -- Benadryl PE Chesty Cough & Nasal Congestion -- Benadryl Mucus Relief Plus Decongestant [GN] JRA MARBLE: Contreras Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- JAIR CONTRERAS, and other similarly situated individuals v. JRA MARBLE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC, XTR SOLUTIONS CORP., and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-24966 (S.D. Fla., Dec. 18, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime under Florida common law and Florida Statutes section 448.08. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker from December 2022 until his wrongful termination on or about August 2024. The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff in a timely manner. In addition, they failed to pay Plaintiff regular wages in the amount of $25,000. In the same vein, when the Plaintiff worked overtime, the Defendants did not pay him at time and one half his regular rate of $15-$18 per hour. JRA MARBLE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC is a construction company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-147 JSC KASPI.KZ: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz (NASDAQ: KSPI) between January 19, 2024 and September 19, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29172 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz continued doing business with Russian entities, and also providing services to Russian citizens, after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, thereby exposing the Company to the undisclosed risk of sanctions; (2) the Company engaged in undisclosed related party transactions; (3) certain of the Company's executives have links to reputed criminals; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about Joint Stock Company Kaspi.kz's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February 18, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=29172 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Over Hearing Aid Coverage --------------------------------------------------------------- B-Town Blog reports that a Burien resident with hearing loss has filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, alleging the insurer's refusal to cover prescription hearing aids constitutes illegal discrimination under the Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Wednesday, Dec. 18, 2024, is led by plaintiff Jason Delessert, who relies on hearing aids for daily life. He argues Kaiser's exclusion of hearing aid coverage under its plans is discriminatory against individuals with hearing disabilities. "I need prescription hearing aids all day long to communicate, work, and socialize -- in essence, to safely and fully live my life. They are as necessary for me as a wheelchair is for someone with a mobility disability," Delessert said. "Yet Kaiser refuses to cover them as 'durable medical equipment' under my health plan. This is discrimination, pure and simple." The case is the first nationwide class action addressing hearing aid exclusions as a form of disability discrimination under the ACA. It follows a similar Washington state lawsuit in 2020, which resulted in a settlement covering specific enrollees but excluded many like Delessert. "Prescription hearing aids only treat hearing disabilities. An exclusion of prescription hearing aids is, in reality, aimed solely at people with hearing disabilities. This is illegal discrimination, and Kaiser knows it," said Eleanor Hamburger, of Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger PLLC, one of the attorneys for Mr. Delessert. The lawsuit seeks to end Kaiser's hearing aid exclusions nationwide and to reimburse enrollees denied coverage. "Hearing aid exclusions are based on the historic discrimination against disabled people by the health insurance industry," said Anna Prakash of Nichols Kaster, one of Mr. Delessert's attorneys. "The ACA was designed to end such discrimination, including against enrollees with hearing disabilities. This lawsuit seeks to make sure Kaiser ends its discriminatory practices now." Kaiser Responds We reached out to Kaiser Permanente, and received the following response on Dec. 20, 2024: "Supporting our members and patients who face physical and social barriers to quality care is core to our mission, and we provide a range of care and services for our members with hearing loss. Coverage for hearing aids and related services can be different depending on the plan, and we strive to provide clear information about what is included. All our plans are guided by the standards established by the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner. Beginning in 2026, the state is updating its model plan to include hearing aids as an essential health benefit for Individual and Family Plans. We are following suit, and as a result, Kaiser Permanente Individual & Family Plan members in Washington will have hearing aid coverage, effective January 1, 2026." [GN] KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON M. DELESSERT, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02087 (Dec. 18, 2024) alleges Kaiser discriminates on the basis of disability when it (or a subsidiary or affiliate) designs, insures, and administers health plans that exclude all coverage for hearing aids, a treatment required only by hearing disabled enrollees. Specifically, prescription hearing aids are the essential piece of durable medical equipment that ensures that hearing disabled individuals are not isolated and segregated from the mainstream of American society. Hearing aids can profoundly improve the life, health and social engagement of hearing disabled insureds. In this sense, hearing aids are like wheelchairs for mobility disabled persons or insulin and supplies for diabetic individuals -- they are the medical devices that offer Plaintiff and the vast majority of hearing disabled insureds access to many daily activities and indeed. The Plaintiff is an enrollee in a Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington Inc. health plan. He has disabling hearing loss and requires prescription hearing aids and related services as recommended by his licensed hearing care provider. Delessert, however, cannot obtain coverage for this needed medical device because his Kaiser health plan excludes all coverage for hearing aids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. Daniel S. Gross, Esq. Ari Robbins Greene, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC 3101 Western Avenue, Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 223-030 E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com rspoonemore@sylaw.com dgross@sylaw.com arobbinsgreene@sylaw.com - and - Anna P. Prakash, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (877) 344-4628 E-mail: aprakash@nka.com KATAPULT HOLDINGS: $2.5M Settlement in McIntosh Suit Has Final OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York grants the Motions for Final Settlement Approval, Attorneys' Fees and related relief in the lawsuit captioned GINA MCINTOSH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KATAPULT HOLDINGS, INC., LEE EINBINDER, HOWARD KURZ, ORLANDO ZAYAS, KARISSA CUPITO, AND DEREK MEDLIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07251-KHP (S.D.N.Y.). The Settlement provides for $2.5 million in cash payment by the Defendants. The lawsuit is a pending class action seeking relief under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the Defendants. On July 24, 2024, Judge Parker granted the Lead Plaintiff's, Matis Nayman's, unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff and an additional Plaintiff, Felipe de Castro Luna, filed the instant motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement, plan of allocation, and certification of a settlement class. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Lead Plaintiff and the additional Plaintiff also filed the instant motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and awards to the Plaintiffs. The Lead Plaintiff brought this class action on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the Defendants, that: (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Katapult securities between June 15, 2021, and Aug. 9, 2021, both dates inclusive, (the "Class Period") and/or (2) beneficially owned and/or held FinServ common stock as of FinServ's stockholders of record at the close of business on May 11, 2021 (the "Record Date") and were eligible to vote at FinServ's June 7, 2021 special meeting (collectively, the "Class"), against Katapult, as well as Defendants Lee Einbinder, Howard Kurz, Orlando Zayas, Karissa Cupito, and Derek Medlin (collectively, "Individual Defendants") for alleged violations of the Exchange Act. Katapult is the product of the merger of an earlier Katapult entity ("legacy Katapult") and FinServ. The Individual Defendants were senior executive officers of Katapult or FinServ during the Class Period. The Individual Defendants are alleged to have possessed the power and authority to control the contents of Katapult's SEC filings, press releases, and other market communications, some of which the Plaintiffs claim contained material misrepresentations in violation of federal securities law that form the basis for this action. Katapult provides point-of-sale lease-purchase options for non-prime consumers (i.e., consumers with credit scores that are higher than those of subprime borrowers, but lower than those of prime borrowers) who cannot access traditional financing products. FinServ was a blank check/special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses. The action was filed on Aug. 27, 2021. On May 26, 2022, the Honorable J. Paul Oetken granted the Plaintiff's motion to appoint Matis Nayman as Lead Plaintiff and approve Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as lead counsel. Thereafter, the Plaintiff twice amended the complaint, after which the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On Aug. 8, 2023, Judge Oetken granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended class action complaint, dismissing the Plaintiff's Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, as well as the Section 20(a) claim based thereon, and Defendants Cupito and Medlin against whom only dismissed claims were brought. Thus, only the Section 14(a) claim remained. Thereafter, the parties exchanged some information and engaged in private mediation before experienced mediator Michelle Yoshida. The parties ultimately agreed to settlement terms, accepting a mediator's proposal. The settlement was reached prior to class certification briefing and contemplates approval of a settlement class. On June 25, 2024, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, the parties consented to conduct all proceedings and entry of a final judgment to Judge Parker. They then presented the Court with their proposed class settlement on July 3, 2024, which this Court preliminarily approved on July 24, 2024, and set a date for a final fairness hearing and approval of the settlement for Dec. 13, 2024. The Plaintiffs then sent class notices out to more than 12,000 potential investors and advertised the settlement in various ways. No potential class member has objected to the proposed settlement, nor opted out of it. The Plaintiffs now seek final approval of the proposed class action settlement and plan of allocation, certification of the settlement class and an award of attorneys' fees and costs and service awards for the Lead Plaintiff and additional plaintiff, Felipe de Castro Luna, who also assisted in prosecuting this matter. Members of the Settlement Class will be entitled to a share of the Settlement Amount, that is $2.5 million cash payment by the Defendants. The settlement consideration is comprised of: (i) a cash component of $1,775,000; and (ii) an additional component worth $725,000 comprised of Katapult common stock and/or cash. The plan of allocation, developed with the help of a damages expert, allocates settlement monies depending on when investors bought and sold Katapult common stock or warrants during the Class Period and/or whether they held FinServ shares that made them eligible to vote at FinServ's June 7, 2021 special meeting and subsequently exchanged these shares for Katapult common stock. Lead Counsel requests that the Court approve the proposed award of attorneys' fees is in the amount of 33 1/3% of the Settlement, or $83,333.00, plus litigation expenses of $44,131.99. Further, Lead Counsel requests that the Court approve a reimbursement of $8,000 to Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Matis Nayman, who spent 100 hours representing the Class and achieving the proposed Settlement. Lead Counsel also requests that the Court approve a reimbursement of $2,000 to Court appointed Plaintiff Felipe de Castro Luna, who spent 10 hours representing the Class and achieving the proposed Settlement. The Court finds that the prerequisites for certification of the proposed settlement class are satisfied. The Court also finds that an award of 33 1/3% of the Settlement Amount, $44,131.99 litigation expenses and costs, and an award of $10,000 total for the Lead Plaintiff and additional named Plaintiff is reasonable. For all these reasons, the Court grants the motion for final approval of the settlement, plan of allocation, and certification of class. The motion for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of litigation expenses, and incentive awards to Plaintiffs Nayman and de Castro Luna is also granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/wj5jma45 from PacerMonitor.com. KEURIG GREEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Baracco Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW BARACCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., a Delaware Corporation, DUNKIN' BRANDS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10837 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 2024), alleges that Defendant's website, https://www.dunkinathome.com, is not fully accessible to screen-reading technology used by blind individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' Website contains significant access barriers that make it impossible for visually impaired customers to properly and fully utilize the Website. Specifically, these barriers make it impossible for the Plaintiff to have full access to the Website and independently review information concerning goods/services for sale, pricing, brickand-mortar location information and detailed information about other services offered by Defendants online, the lawsuit says. On at least six occasions starting in mid-2024 to the present, the Plaintiff attempted to access Defendants' Website in order to obtain more information about Dunkin' K-Cup Pods using his desktop computer and/or smartphone. However, when she attempted to do so, the Plaintiff was, and continues to be, unable to independently and fully access information available to the general public through Defendants' website due to the Website's communication barriers. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to correct Defendants' policies and practices to include measures necessary to ensure compliance with federal and state law and to include monitoring of such measures, to update and remove accessibility barriers on the Website so that Plaintiff and the Class Members may be able to independently and privately use Defendants' Website. The complaint also seeks compensatory damages to the Plaintiff and the Class Members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Baracco is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person. He screen-reader software to access and operate websites and mobile application. Keurig operates as a beverage company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Azar Mouzari, Esq. BEVERLY HILLS TRIAL ATTORNEYS, P.C. 9350 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 858-5567 Facsimile: (310) 627-8642 E-mail: azar@bhtrialattorneys.com KYVERNA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 7, 2025 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Kyverna Therapeutics, Inc. ("Kyverna" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KYTX) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's February 2024 initial public offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"). If you suffered a loss on your Kyverna investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/Kyverna-Therapeutics-Inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On or about February 8, 2024, Kyverna conducted its IPO selling 14.5 million shares of common stock for $22.00 per share. On June 14, 2024, Kyverna provided an update on its lupus nephritis drug, KYV-101, and published an investor presentation disclosing adverse data regarding one of its clinical trials, despite having previously touted patient improvement. Investors have suffered significant losses since the IPO. At the time of filing, Kyverna's stock price traded as low as $3.92 per share, more than 82% the IPO price. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that in the Registration Statement and throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) adverse data it possessed related to one of its trials; (2) the risk posed by the Company's withholding of adverse data regarding one of its clinical trials; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kyverna common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than February 7, 2025 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Charles Linehan, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Tel: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] LAKEVIEW HEALTH: Court Strikes Bid to Dismiss Skov Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, strikes the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled BROCK SKOV, et al., Plaintiffs v. LAKEVIEW HEALTH SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00732-MMH-LLL (M.D. Fla.). The cause is before the Court on Defendant Lakeview Health Systems' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed on Dec. 5, 2024. Upon review of the Motion, Judge Howard says it appears that Lakeview Health Systems failed to provide certification under Rule 3.01(g), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule(s)), confirming that it has conferred with the Plaintiffs in a good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the Motion and advising the Court whether the Plaintiffs agree to the relief requested. Additionally, the Motion, which is filed as three separate documents, violates Local Rule 3.01(a), which requires motions and legal memoranda to be filed as a single document. Therefore, as Lakeview Health Systems failed to comply with the Local Rules of the Court, Judge Howard says the Motion will be stricken. In light of the foregoing, the Court strikes Lakeview Health Systems' Motion to Dismiss. Lakeview Health Systems had up to and including Dec. 20, 2024, to file a proper motion and supporting memorandum of law that complies with the Court's Local Rules. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yddd6xzb from PacerMonitor.com. LAMB WESTON: Alamo's Roast Sues Over Price Fixing Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------ ALAMO’S ROAST BEEF, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12744 (N.D. Ill., December 11, 2024) seeks relief against Defendants for their alleged conspiracy to fix prices of Frozen Potato Products in the United States. By at least the start of 2021, the Defendants conspired to fix the prices of their Frozen Potato Products above competitive levels. The Defendants implemented lockstep price increases that allowed them to realize unprecedented margins. This conspiracy continues as have price increases of more than 50%, despite the fact that the costs of raw potatoes have declined significantly. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for redress of the injury and damages it and members of the Class have suffered and continue to suffer by reason of Defendants' past and continuing violations of law, including for damages, injunctive relief, and disgorgement of Defendants' ill-gotten gains into a common fund from which it and members of the Class may obtain restitution. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and for unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Eagle, Idaho, Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a leading producer, distributor, and marketer of value-added Frozen Potato Products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Sitso Bediako, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Nicole Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 Facsimile: (702) 983-8673 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us LEXINGTON LAW: $1.8B Payout Issued to Customers in False Ads' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced on December 5 that $1.8 billion is being issued to 4.3 million consumers who were charged unlawful upfront fees or deceived by bait-and-switch advertising by major credit repair companies Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com. In a stipulated final judgment and order filed in August 2023, the court found that Lexington Law, CreditRepair.com, their parent companies and a slew of affiliates -- some of the largest credit repair brands nationwide -- had violated certain federal consumer protection laws. As a result of the court's judgment, the CFPB is distributing $1.8 billion in refunds to consumers who were harmed by the credit repair companies' illegal practices, the agency said in a December 5 press release. According to the case's official website, CFPB-LexLaw.org, consumers eligible for a payout -- identified through defendant records -- include anyone who made a payment to Lexington Law or CreditRepair.com for credit repair services purchased between March 8, 2016 and August 30, 2023, after being subject to telemarketing in connection with these services. Per the website, the matter also includes those who made a payment to one of these companies from July 21, 2011 to August 30, 2023 after being live-transferred by one of the defendants' marketing affiliates allegedly involved in deceptive advertising. Eligible consumers do not need to do anything to receive a payment, the site relays. Checks will be mailed during a six-week period from December 5, 2024 to January 6, 2025, with individual payment amounts based on a pro-rated share of the fees consumers paid to Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com, the website states. The final payout amount may not cover all the fees a consumer paid to the companies, the site notes. According to the press release, $1.8 billion is so far the largest distribution to come from the CFPB's victims relief fund, which is fully financed through civil penalties paid by entities that have violated consumer financial protection laws. According to the August 2023 order, the court determined that Lexington Law and CreditRepair.com violated the federal Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), which mandates that fees for credit repair services can be collected only after consumers have been provided with documentation reflecting that the promised results were achieved. The companies' assessment of advance fees for their services breached these requirements, the document charged. In addition, the court concluded that the credit repair companies had engaged in misleading marketing tactics to entice consumers to sign up for their services, in violation of the TSR and federal Consumer Financial Protection Act. The court's order imposes a nearly $2.7 billion judgment against the defendants, a $45 million civil penalty against CreditRepair.com's parent company, and an $18 million civil penalty against Lexington Law. In addition, the defendants are banned from telemarketing credit repair services for 10 years. A press release issued on August 28, 2023 says that the companies filed for bankruptcy following the court's ruling. [GN] LIBERTY BROADBAND: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Charter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP), relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Battery Future Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: BFAC), relating to the proposed merger with Class Over, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Class Over has been given an enterprise value of approximately $135 million. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/battery-future-acquisition-corp-bfac/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. (OTC: LTRPA, LTRPB), relating to the proposed merger with Tripadvisor, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shares of Liberty TripAdvisor Common Stock will be converted into the right to receive $0.2567 in cash. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-tripadvisor-holdings-inc-ltrpa-ltrpb/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] LOANDEPOT.COM LLC: Wins Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in Colonna Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Brantley Starr of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted LoanDepot.com LLC's motion to bifurcate discovery in the case captioned as ANGELA COLONNA, STEPHEN COLONNA, and AVINASH DAGA, Plaintiffs, v. LOANDEPOT.COM LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-0376-X (N.D. Tex.). This is a discovery fight about which should come first: individual discovery or class discovery. The underlying case is a class action regarding an alleged failure to disclose on the part of Loan Depot. The plaintiffs worked with Loan Depot to refinance their mortgages and allege that Loan Depot's loan officers told them they would be able to "skip a payment" if they refinanced their mortgage but did not inform them that this would cause them to pay more interest over the life of the loan. The Court previously dismissed all but one of the plaintiffs' claims because of two missing facts: when the plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known that the alleged harm occurred and whether the plaintiffs are even customers under the DTPA. Because this is a class action, Loan Depot would prefer to have discovery on the surviving DTPA claim for the class representatives first before getting to class discovery. The class representatives, on the other hand, would like for class discovery to proceed first. The question for the Court is which path would lead to an expeditious, efficient, and just resolution of this case. In the first phase of discovery, Loan Depot seeks to reveal whether the plaintiffs' DTPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations, what the plaintiffs were told, "whether they 'skipped any payments,' and whether they paid any additional interest as a result." Finding answers to those questions has the potential to resolve this case with a motion for summary judgment, thereby saving time and resources. Loan Depot asked for roughly three months to complete this phase. For their part, the plaintiffs seek class discovery first and asked for one year to complete it before filing a motion for class certification. Simply put, spending three months to figure out whether these claims are barred by a statute of limitations is more efficient than running the risk of undergoing over a year of discovery only to find out that the claims were barred all along. While putting individual discovery first might not resolve the case, if it does, then knowing that up front rather than letting a dark statute of limitations cloud loom over the case for over a year is preferable. Therefore, the Court will allow individual discovery on the DTPA claim to proceed first. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=x9Cqp5 LOREN D. STARK: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $750,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- A $750,000 settlement has been reached to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit filed over a data breach experienced by the Loren D. Stark Company (LDSCO) in 2022. The class action settlement covers more than 58,000 people who were sent notification by LDSCO stating that their personal information was or may have been compromised in the data incident, which the retirement plan consulting firm says it detected in October 2022. The official website for the Loren D. Stark settlement can be found at LDSCODataSettlement.com. Class members had until December 17, 2024 to file a claim form for settlement benefits. According to court documents, covered individuals who filed a valid, timely claim are eligible for reimbursement of up to $5,000 in documented out-of-pocket losses that are "fairly traceable" to the LDSCO data breach. Class members could have also submitted a claim to get a pro-rated cash payment of up to $70. The court granted preliminary approval to the settlement in September 2024, and a final approval hearing is slated for January 21, 2025. "If the Court approves the Settlement, eligible Settlement Class Members whose claims were approved by the Settlement Administrator will be sent payment after all appeals and other reviews, if any, are completed," the settlement site reads. "Please be patient." Initially filed in August 2023, the LDSCO data breach lawsuit alleged that the defendant failed to properly secure individuals' personal information stored on its computer systems. Per the case, LDSCO discovered on October 18, 2022 that cybercriminals had infiltrated its network, stealing names and Social Security numbers. The company has, as part of the settlement, agreed to remedy the issues that led to the cyberattack and implement other business practices to adequately protect information in its possession. [GN] LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $250,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Luxottica agreed to a $250,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims a 2020 data breach compromised consumer information. The Luxottica settlement benefits patients of Luxottica-owned or affiliated eye care practices whose personal information the Luxottica data breach may have impacted between Aug. 5-9, 2020. According to a data breach class action lawsuit, Luxottica failed to protect consumer information from a cyberattack in August 2020 that reportedly compromised sensitive consumer information, such as Social Security numbers, financial data, health information and more. Plaintiffs in the data breach class action lawsuit claim Luxottica could have prevented the breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Luxottica is an eyewear retailer that owns brands such as Ray-Ban, Oakley, Persol, Vogue Eyewear and more. The company also owns and operates eyewear retailers, such as Sunglass Hut, Target Optical, Pearle Vision and more. Luxottica hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $250,000 to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Luxottica settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the type of information compromised in the data breach. Class members whose Social Security numbers or financial data were potentially impacted in the Luxottica data breach can receive reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses and lost time, as well as a pro rata cash payment and two years of free credit monitoring. Class members whose Social Security numbers and financial data were not impacted in the data breach can receive up to $300 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket losses and lost time. Lost time payments can be for up to four hours at $20 per hour for a maximum of $60. California residents can receive an additional $50 payment. The deadline for exclusion was Nov. 13, 2024. The deadline for objection was Nov. 4, 2024. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 21, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Jan. 2, 2025. Who's Eligible Patients of a Luxottica-owned or affiliated eye care practice in the United States who scheduled an appointment on or before Aug. 5, 2020 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Documentation of out-of-pocket expenses, such as receipts, bank statements, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 01/02/2025 Case Name In re: Luxottica of America Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00908-MRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Final Hearing 01/21/2025 Settlement Website LuxotticaDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator Settlement Administrator – 83090 c/o Kroll Settlement Administration PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 (833) 425-5439 Class Counsel Dorothy P. Antullis ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Bryan D. Bleichner CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA Hassan A. Zavareei TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP Defense Counsel Paul G. Karlsgodt BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP [GN] MAC PROPERTIES: Tenant Sue Over Housing Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------ Zoe Pharo of Hyde Park Herald reports that a class-action lawsuit alleges that Mac Properties is systemically discriminating against prospective renters who hold housing choice vouchers. The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Tuesday, December 17, alleges that Mac has illegally refused to rent or even provide tours of desirable Hyde Park apartments to people who use vouchers, a federal income-based rent subsidy. In the complaint, four voucher holders who are Black mothers allege that they were denied tours of and applications to rent apartments at new or renovated high-rise buildings in Hyde Park managed by Mac, which maintains one of the largest housing portfolios in the neighborhood. The claimants allege that they were instead steered to older, low-rise properties with fewer amenities, some of which are located along the western edge of the neighborhood. The lawsuit was filed by Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd. on behalf of the four women and HOPE Fair Housing Center, a civil rights nonprofit based in suburban Wheaton. The complaint also estimates that there are more than 40 voucher holders who experienced similar discrimination on or after Dec. 17, 2021 who may be eligible for compensation. In all, it estimates that Mac owns about 100 properties in or around Hyde Park alone, amounting to about 5,000 rental units, about half of all rental units in the neighborhood. Mac also owns properties in St. Louis and Kansas City. "Our lawsuit against Mac seeks to end these practices, hold them accountable for the impact of years of discrimination and send a message to all housing providers that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated in Chicago or across the state," said MacKenzie Speer, an attorney with the Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, at a press conference. A spokesperson for Mac Properties denied the allegations, calling them "entirely baseless" and a misrepresentation. "Mac Properties has a proven and longstanding commitment to providing equal access to housing for all individuals, regardless of income," said the spokesperson. "We strictly adhere to all local, state, and federal housing laws -- without exception." Of the company's 5,000 rental units in the area, the spokesperson continued, "hundreds of renters have successfully secured housing using vouchers." Vouchers 'meaningless' if landlords can discriminate In February 2023, RySheena Moore, a U.S. Army veteran, tried to use her voucher to rent a two-bedroom apartment at Regents Park Apartments, 5035 S. East End Avenue, for herself and her 15-year-old son. She chose the building because of its proximity to Kenwood Academy, its pool and other amenities to help treat her combat-related disability, the complaint reads. But when Moore shared that she had a voucher, the complaint alleges, a leasing agent told her that the apartments were not available and refused to provide her with a tour or an application. Moore alleged that she sent the leasing agent screenshots of two Regents Park apartments that were listed as available and within her budget, according to the complaint, but the agent never responded. She attempted to speak directly with leasing agents in-person, but they continually refused to let Moore see the units. That April, Moore asked a friend to inquire about a unit, the complaint continues. The leasing agent promptly scheduled a tour and repeatedly followed up with the friend about renting the apartment. The opportunities provided by housing vouchers, Moore said at the Dec. 17 press conference, are "meaningless if property managers and landlords can discriminate without facing consequences." "It seemed as though voucher holders didn't deserve to live in the buildings with amenities," Moore said. Cadeiga Coleman had a similar experience with leasing agents at Regents Park. Planning to move to Chicago from Minnesota with her 5-year-old daughter, she needed to find an apartment quickly or risk losing her voucher, according to the complaint, and contacted Mac in December 2022. But once she disclosed that she held a voucher, she alleged that the agents refused to show her any units in the building or send her an application, telling her that she could not rent an apartment without "work income" that was at least 2.5 times the monthly rent, even though the voucher would pay for the majority of it. She was recommended four other apartments that were not in high-rises, buildings with amenities or near the lake. In July 2023, Janishia Fleming also inquired at Regents Park. A mother of three, Fleming too was denied the chance to tour it, and instead was shown buildings far from the lake that were "filthy," the complaint says. And in the spring of 2023, when Sheliah Ayanwale requested an application at 5252 Apartments, 5252 S. Cornell Ave., according to the complaint, she was refused and told no apartments were available. She had her cousin inquire about an apartment, where a leasing agent provided information on available units well within Ayanwale's price range. Other buildings that the complaint alleged Mac would not show voucher holders include Solstice on the Park, Del Prado, East Park Tower, Windermere House, Blackwood Apartments, City Hyde Park and the Sutherland, which have amenities such as fitness centers, lounge areas and pools, as well as 24-hour on-site staffing. Instead of these apartments, plaintiffs were shown units they described as "dirty" and "smelly." Speer said one plaintiff "felt like she had been steered towards a lower quality unit for about the same rent." Discrimination against people with vouchers is not a new allegation against Mac. Since 2009, the complaint notes, voucher holders have filed formal administrative complaints against Mac in 10 different years. HOPE staff had heard similar allegations about Mac's leasing practices for years. In 2023, the organization launched an investigation; it trained testers to pose as prospective tenants at Mac buildings in order to evaluate the company's leasing practices. The complaint alleges that Mac repeatedly gave testers with vouchers different information and treated them worse than "nearly identical" prospective tenants who sought to rent without a voucher, even when they had the same budget and sought the same apartments at the same time. Since 2020, the complaint alleges, there have been at least 17 separate instances of housing discrimination against people with vouchers and HOPE testers. "What we found was a deeply troubling and sophisticated policy and practice of denying, deterring and steering potential applicants who utilize housing choice vouchers," said Michael Chavarria, executive director of HOPE. "Testers who never mentioned utilizing a voucher consistently received better treatment." The Housing Choice Voucher program is the largest federal housing program. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development funds the program, and the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) manages it locally. Voucher holders typically pay between 30% and 40% of their income toward rent and utilities, and CHA pays the remainder. This means that the property owner is guaranteed full market-rate rent, the complaint notes, even if a voucher holder's income changes during or between leases. While these vouchers offer people some flexibility in housing options, the program's wait list is prohibitively long for many. Applicants have reported waiting anywhere from six months to several years before they get approved for a voucher. Depending on need, according to the CHA, the wait can take as long as 25 years. The CHA gets approved for higher subsidies for "Mobility Areas," neighborhoods with low poverty and crime rates. The CHA also provides counseling, $1,000 in moving assistance and one-time incentive payments to landlords of properties in these areas. Hyde Park, the complaint says, is one of the only mobility areas on the South Side. In all, the CHA distributes roughly 47,000 vouchers to Chicago residents each year. As of the fall, according to data obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, 703 tenants in Hyde Park utilize vouchers. Chavarria said that discriminating against voucher holders reinforces both racial and economic housing segregation in the city. Among voucher holders in Chicago, 89% are Black, 8% are Hispanic and 2% are white. "Our findings are a stark reminder that source of income discrimination still impacts Chicago's rental market," said Chavarria. Source of income discrimination was made illegal in the City of Chicago with the 1990 Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance. Cook County added protections in 2013 in the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance, and the State of Illinois added similar protections in 2023 with its amended Illinois Human Rights Act. Despite these laws, advocates say, discrimination persists. "This lawsuit is a critical step toward holding property management companies accountable and ensuring that these discriminatory practices are brought to an end across Chicago and Illinois," said Chavarria. "Everyone deserves the chance to rent a home in the neighborhood of their choice, whether it's for access to well-resourced schools, proximity to work or other property priorities." The Mac spokesperson said the company will defend itself against these claims in court, calling them "misinformation." "Our leasing process is fair, transparent, and rigorously monitored," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We implement robust online tracking systems, maintain close managerial oversight, and enforce intensive, ongoing training for every leasing agent to guarantee full compliance with all legal and ethical standards." In September, Mac settled another class-action lawsuit over a disastrous apartment power failure during a sub-zero cold snap in 2022, which displaced 180 tenants for three weeks. The settlement amounted to $995,000, coming out to at least $6,100 per tenant. Attorneys and Moore said that they hope the case will lead to better treatment of voucher holders in the city. "I'm telling my story, not just for myself, but for every family who participates in the voucher program to build a better future," Moore said. "This kind of discrimination is unacceptable and it has to stop. [GN] MADHAVA HONEY: Products Contain Toxic Phthalates, Cross Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPHINE CROSS and SCOTT ASCHENBRENNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MADHAVA HONEY, LTD., Case No. 2:24-cv-11006-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2024) alleges that the Products contain toxic phthalates, man-made chemicals, and other dangerous plasticizers, rendering them neither "Clean & Simple" nor pure. According to the complaint, independent and accredited lab testing of the Defendant's Products from multiple retail sources confirms earlier independently published testing and reports revealing that the Products are neither clean nor pure but instead contaminated by at least two different types of toxic phthalates as well as one non-phthalate but also dangerous plasticizer -- all of which pose serious threats to human health. These three toxic substances and their respective test results are: -- Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate ("DEHP"): Independent testing shows the Products contain between 2.13 and 19.095 micrograms of DEHP per serving. -- Diisononyl Phthalate ("DINP"): Independent testing shows the Products contain between 14.95 and 37.8 micrograms of DINP per serving. -- Dibutyl Sebacate ("DBS"): Independent testing results show the Products contain between 0.69 and 20.76 micrograms of non- phthalate plasticizer DBS per serving. Testing of the Products reveals that various iterations of the Products also contain additional types of toxic plasticizers beyond DEHP, DINP, and DBS, the lawsuit says. The Products at issue are Madhava's Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil ("Organic EVOO") and Non-GMO Avocado Oil ("Avocado Oil"), each of which comes in a 500-milliliter bottle and a one-liter tin. Images of the four iterations of Defendant's Products. The Plaintiff contends that through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling, advertising, and marketing the Products, Madhava has sought to take advantage of unwitting consumers as well as Madhava's lawfully acting competitors, over whom Madhava maintains an unfair competitive advantage. That's because other oils on the market with toxic phthalates or other synthetic chemicals do not falsely claim to be clean. MADHAVA HONEY, LTD. provides natural sweeteners & condiments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Benjamin J. Fuchs, Esq. Meg Berkowitz, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com bfuchs@clarksonlawfirm.com mberkowitz@clarksonlawfirm.com MADONNA: Fans Drop Class Action Lawsuit Over Late Concerts ---------------------------------------------------------- Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that three Madonna fans have dropped a lawsuit that accused the pop superstar and the owner of Washington, D.C.'s Capital One Arena of misleading concertgoers by starting a pair of her shows two hours late. The fans voluntarily dismissed, opens new tab the proposed class action in federal court in Washington without giving a reason. Lawyers for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment and more information, including whether a settlement was reached. The case was among several others in New York and Florida alleging Madonna violated laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices by beginning shows after their advertised start times. Madonna and her concert venues denied deceiving fans. The plaintiffs who sued over the Washington concerts said they had to leave the shows early in December 2023 because of the delays. The lawsuit accused Madonna of showing "total disrespect for her fans." The lawyer who filed the case, Marcus Corwin, withdrew a similar lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn in June. Madonna's lawyers had accused Corwin of falsely telling a judge that there had been a settlement. Judges in a pair of similar lawsuits in Florida recently ruled for Madonna in stopping the cases from moving forward for now. The case is Elizabeth Halper-Asefi et al v. Madonna Louise Ciccone et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:24-cv-01118-RC. For plaintiffs: Marcus Corwin of Corwin Law For defendants: Sandra Crawshaw-Sparks of Proskauer Rose [GN] MAHALAXMI INN: Salazar Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Miguel Salazar and Claudia Rubio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MAHALAXMI INN CORP. d/b/a CROSSBAY MOTOR INN, HASMUKH PATEL and MARIO BARRAZA, as individuals, Case No. 1:24-cv-08706 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought to recover damages for the Defendants' egregious violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws arising out of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. Although Plaintiffs worked approximately 74-76 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL. The Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants. MAHALAXMI INN CORP. d/b/a CROSSBAY MOTOR INN, is a New York domestic business corporation, organized under the laws of the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Phone: 718-263-9591 MATHIS BROS: Simpson Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as James Simpson and Daniel Deforest, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MATHIS BROS. OKLAHOMA CITY, LLC, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2433295 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02682. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges two claims against Defendant for invasion of privacy under California Penal Code. The Plaintiffs are California residents who made customer service calls to Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege that these conversations were recorded without notice and without their knowledge or consent, and that "on information and belief, it is Defendant's practice to record all inbound and outbound telephone communications." The Plaintiffs claim that they had a "reasonable expectation of privacy that the customer service calls would not be recorded" and that doing so constituted an invasion of their privacy. The Plaintiffs contend they "provided Defendant with valuable information (the free recordings of the calls) without their consent or knowledge" in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy W. Loose, Esq. Leonora A. Cohen, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213.229.7000 Email: TLoose@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com MCIC INC: Mesothelioma Victims Settle Class Action for $57MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Terri Oppenheimer of Mesothelioma.net reports that in 1994, a Baltimore law firm reached a settlement with an asbestos installer that paid thousands of mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease victims between $1,000 and $9,500 per claim. Three decades later, the victims settled a legal malpractice claim with the law firm over errors made in the original agreement: the new settlement provides an additional $57 million to the more than 7,000 beneficiaries. Complex Thirty-Year Journey Leads to $57 Million Asbestos Settlement The path that mesothelioma and other asbestos-disease victims traveled to the new $57 million asbestos settlement has been long and winding. The original 1994 settlement agreement with Baltimore-area asbestos installer MCIC, Inc. was negotiated by the Law Offices of Peter Angelos. That agreement agreement was predicated on an MCIC's insurers paying out all available insurance to a settlement fund. But in 1998, the Angelos firm discovered "substantial additional insurance applicable to the claims." The firm filed a motion on behalf of the mesothelioma and asbestos-disease victims to enforce the settlement but did not do so until 2002, by which time the courts ruled too much time had passed. Nineteen years later, a different law firm representing those victims filed suit against the original attorneys who managed their claim, accusing the firm of legal malpractice. In November, that claim resulted in an agreement to pay $57 million to those victims based on the injury categories established in the original settlement. The monies will largely be paid from the estate of the law firm's principal. Estate of Famed Mesothelioma Attorney Will Pay $57 Million to Asbestos Victims Interestingly, the $57 million will be paid from the estate of Peter Angelos, who died at the age of 94 in March of 2023 after a lifetime spent representing mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease victims. Angelos is estimated to have won more than $1 billion in damages from asbestos companies. According to the general counsel of the firm that bears his name, "We are delighted that Peter's legacy and the ongoing commitment of his family have ensured a resolution that serves to add further benefit for many historic clients of our firm." Initial payments are expected to be distributed to victims early next year. If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more. [GN] METROPOLITAN COUNCIL: Fiorito Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Council. The case is styled as Michael Fiorito, Dennis Rains, Joseph Parshall, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Metropolitan Council doing business as: Metro Transit, Delta Airlines, Sun County Airlines, Case No. 0:24-cv-04562-DSD-DLM (D. Minn., Dec. 20, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Metropolitan Council -- https://metrocouncil.org/ -- is the regional policy-making body, planning agency, and provider of essential services for the Twin Cities metropolitan region.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. MGP INGREDIENTS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Feb. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired MGP Ingredients, Inc. (NASDAQ: MGPI) ("MGPI" or the "Company") common stock between May 4, 2023 through October 30, 2024 (the "Class Period"), charging the Company and certain of its current and former senior executives with violations of the federal securities laws (collectively, "Defendants"). MGPI investors have until February 14, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the MGPI class action lawsuit. If you purchased or acquired MGPI common stock between May 4, 2023 through October 30, 2024, and suffered substantial losses, and you wish to obtain additional information or serve as lead plaintiff in this lawsuit, you may submit your information and contact us here: https://dicellolevitt.com/securities/mgpi/. You can also contact DiCello Levitt attorneys Brian O'Mara or Ruben Peña by calling (888) 287-9005 or emailing investors@dicellolevitt.com. Those who inquire by email are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. Case Allegations MGPI is an American distilled spirits producer that manufactures, distills, and sells alcoholic beverages such as tequila, bourbon, rye, and other whiskeys, as well as grain-neutral spirits such as vodka and gin under different brand names and under its own labels. The MGPI lawsuit alleges that Defendants issued false and misleading statements and/or concealed material adverse facts concerning MGPI's business, operations, and prospects during the Class Period. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly advertised a strong demand and "normal" inventory levels in MGPI's brown goods (i.e., American whiskies and tequila), when consumption of such goods had slowed and there was an oversupply in MGPI's products. Further, Defendants assured investors that the Company was better positioned than its competitors, and would not be impacted, as MGPI had already initiated actions to decrease the risk of lower consumption and product oversupply, but in reality, it had not. The truth began to emerge on October 17, 2024, when MGPI reported its preliminary financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2024. In the related press release, the Company announced its sales were expected to decline 14% from the prior year's third quarter, and explained that "[s]oft alcohol spirits category trends and elevated industry-wide whiskey inventories are putting greater than expected pressure on our brown goods business." On this news, the price of MGPI stock fell by $24.07 per share, or nearly 30%, to close at $57.50 per share three trading days later. Then, on October 31, 2024, MGPI provided more details when Defendants pointed to "the softening American whiskey category trends and elevated industry-wide barrel inventories" as the source of its troubles, requiring the Company "to further lower [its] net aging whiskey put away, scale down [its] whiskey production, and optimize [its] cost structure to mitigate lower production volumes." These statements were followed by the Company announcing it was "significantly reducing [its] brown goods production to better align with demand in 2025." On this news, the price of MGPI stock declined by $8.27 per share, or nearly 15%, to close at $49.04 per share on October 31, 2024. About DiCello Levitt At DiCello Levitt, we are dedicated to achieving justice for our clients through class action, business-to-business, public client, whistleblower, personal injury, civil and human rights, and mass tort litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day, we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our clients. DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark ratings. The New York Law Journal also recently recognized DiCello Levitt as a Distinguished Leader in trial innovation. For more information about the Firm, including recent trial victories and case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Media Contact Amy Coker 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240 San Diego, CA 92121 619-963-2426 investors@dicellolevitt.com [GN] MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES: Provost Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Provost, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 23CV057127 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-09306. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges Unpaid Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses; and Violation of Cal. Business & Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Michelle La Mar, Esq. Avi Gholian, Esq. LOEB & LOEB LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310.282.2000 Facsimile: 310.282.2200 Email: mlamar@loeb.com agholian@loeb.com MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Hair Care Products ------------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Stephanie Williams, Georgina Gomes and Krista Gillette filed a class action lawsuit against Mielle Organics LLC and The Procter & Gamble Co. Why: Williams, Gomes and Gillette claim Mielle Organics failed to disclose its rosemary mint hair care products may cause hair loss and other injuries. Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. Mielle Organics rosemary mint hair care products contain ingredients that cause hair loss and other injuries, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiff's Stephanie Williams, Georgina Gomes and Krista Gillette's class action lawsuit claims Mielle Organics -- owned by The Procter & Gamble Co. -- misrepresented the rosemary mint hair care products as safe. Williams, Gomes and Gillette argue Mielle Organics also failed to disclose the alleged dangers associated with using its rosemary mint hair care products. "The products contain ingredients that cause and have caused hair loss and other injuries in its users, including plaintiffs and those in the proposed class," the Mielle Organics class action says. The plaintiffs want to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Mielle Organics rosemary mint hair care products for personal or household use. The group also wants to represent subclasses of consumers who purchased the products for personal or household use in the states of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Washington. Mielle Organics failed to adequately test rosemary mint hair care products, class action claims Williams, Gomes and Gillette argue Mielle Organics must have failed to adequately test their rosemary mint hair care products, as they would have discovered they contained ingredients that cause hair loss, making them -- ineligible for distribution." "Accordingly, (Mielle Organics) knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced harmful and/or misbranded Products into the U.S. market," the class action says. The plaintiffs claim Mielle Organics and Procter & Gamble are guilty of fraud and unjust enrichment and violating state consumer fraud acts. They demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against Mielle Organics last month over claims the company's Rosemary Mint Scalp & Strengthening Hair Oil causes hair loss. The plaintiffs are represented by James M. Dore and Daniel I. Schlade of Dore Law Offices LLC. The Mielle Organics class action lawsuit is Williams, et al. v. Mielle Organics LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-12763, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] MIXX LIFESTYLE: McRae Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Dartel McRae, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MIXX LIFESTYLE INC. d//b/a NEBULA NY, YANG GAO, HUI FANG, and ERICA MAURER, Case No. 1:24-cv-09851 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing to pay appropriate overtime and wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked special events and earned a higher hourly wage. Mixx Lifestyle, Inc. d/b/a Nebula NY is a New York corporation that owns and operates Nebula NY nightclub in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 MORGAN STANLEY: Gagner Sues Over Unlawful Cash Sweep Programs ------------------------------------------------------------- Neal Gagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, and E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09875 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2024), is brought to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their cash sweep programs ("Sweep Programs"). Under the Sweep Programs, Defendants swept idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by and affiliated with Defendants. The cash sweep accounts were highly lucrative for Defendants and their affiliate banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants used the Sweep Programs to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers. The Defendants' use of the Sweep Programs to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute") and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Accordingly, Defendants' Sweep Programs have begun to attract scrutiny from federal regulators. In August 2024, Morgan Stanley announced that it was under investigation by the SEC for potential violations of the federal statute governing the conduct of investment advisors concerning the Sweep Programs, says the complaint. The Plaintiff held an individual brokerage account with E*TRADE. Morgan Stanley is a financial services company that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Astley, Esq. Andrew T. Rees, Esq. Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq. Scott I. Dion, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Email: acohen@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Guri Ademi, Esq. ADEMI LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 414/482-8000 Email: sademi@ademilaw.com gademi@ademilaw.com MORTGAGE RESEARCH: Loses Bid to Dismiss Robertson TCPA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Douglas Harpool of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied the Mortgage Research Center, LLC's Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Strike Class Allegations; Motion to Stay Discovery; and Motion to Bifurcate Discovery in the case captioned as ERIN ROBERTSON, Individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MORTGAGE RESEARCH CENTER, LLC d/b/a Veterans United, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-04106-MDH (W.D. Mo.). Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint brings a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Defendant sent telemarketing calls or messages to her when her number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff brings her claims on behalf of herself and a proposed nationwide class of individuals who were sent the same alleged illegal telemarketing calls. Plaintiff further alleges she has never been a customer of Defendant and never consented to receive calls from Defendant. Plaintiff states that despite this, she received four text messages from Defendant that encouraged the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services of the Defendant. Plaintiff alleges the messages violate provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c)(5) & 47 C.F.R. Sec. 64.1200(c). Motion to Dismiss Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint arguing that the messages Plaintiff received are not "telephone solicitations" under the TCPA. Defendant further argues that the messages were transactional communications that were directly related to facilitating and completing an existing transaction between Defendant and Plaintiff. While Defendant's arguments raise factual disputes and possible defenses to Plaintiff's claims, they do not warrant dismissal. In this case, it is clear Plaintiff alleges she was never a customer of Defendant, never consented to the communications from Defendant, and that there was no existing "transaction" or business relationship between the parties, the Court finds. Reviewing the First Amended Complaint in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, she has alleged violations of the TCPA. Whether Plaintiff may ultimately prevail can be established through discovery in this case. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied. Motion to Strike Class Allegations Defendant also moves to strike the class allegations from Plaintiff's Complaint. Defendant argues that the proposed class includes individuals who either consented to communications or maintained business relationships with Defendant who would explicitly be exempt from TCPA claims. Defendant further argues that the class is overly broad as it fails to exclude individuals who have not personally registered their numbers on the National DNC registry. Defendant contends Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23's requirements. The Court finds the parties should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery and present evidence on the issues raised by Plaintiff's class action allegations and that a motion to strike is premature. In this case, Defendant does not deny that the messages were sent, the issue is whether the messages violated the TCPA and whether Plaintiff can meet the requirements of Rule 23 for class certification of her claims based on those messages. Defendant's Motion to Strike is denied. Motion to Stay Discovery Defendant has moved the Court to stay discovery pending the resolution of its pending motions to dismiss and strike. The Court denies this motion as moot. There is no basis to stay discovery. The Court has denied the motions to dismiss and strike and discovery should proceed pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order. The Motion to Stay Discovery is denied. Motion to Bifurcate Discovery Defendant moves to bifurcate discovery to address Plaintiff's individual claims and potentially avoid the need for extensive and burdensome class discovery if Plaintiff's claims fail. In this case, the Court does not find bifurcation is necessary. Plaintiff's claims and any potential class members' claims overlap. The class certification will be tied to the issues surrounding standing and the merits of the claims. The Motion to Bifurcate Discovery is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=493naP MOSQUITO SQUAD: Class Settlement in Lenorowitz Suit Denied Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Omar A. Williams of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut denied the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement in the case captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MOSQUITO SQUAD FRANCHISING, LLC; MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-1922 (OAW) (D. Conn.) without prejudice subject to the parties' reaching an alternative agreement. Plaintiff commenced this class action and filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Secs. 227, et seq. by spamming consumers with unsolicited messages advertising the defendants' pest control services. After discovery, class certification briefing, an attempt to appeal the court's certification order, summary judgment briefing, and mediation before the Honorable Judge Andersen (Ret.), the parties reached a settlement agreement that is the subject of this order. Judge Williams declined to approve the agreement, citing concerns that its reversionary and clear sailing clauses undermine the deterrent purpose of class actions, obscure class counsel's fees, create potential for collusion between parties' counsel, encourage unethical behavior, and improperly divert class members' funds. Judge Williams questioned the fairness of providing a voucher for a one-time pest spray treatment without proving its $189 value or ensuring the Defendant wouldn't increase service costs, potentially leaving class members with significant expenses. He also noted that texting mobile numbers, given the nature of the harm involving pre-recorded messages to cellular phones, would be an appropriate and reliable method of notifying affected individuals. The court is mindful of the strong judicial policy in favor of settlements, particularly in the class action context, as the compromise of complex litigation is encouraged by the courts and favored by public policy. It also acknowledges the age of this case and the time it took for the court to carefully review the motion. However, in genuinely fulfilling its obligation to ensure the settlement's underlying fairness to class members, approval is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oEQSeE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Courtemanche's Bid for Limited Discovery Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JASON COURTEMANCHE, BRETT FORESMAN, JUAN RIOS, and DENNIS WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s) v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC., CALLYO 2009 CORP., SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP., and JOHN E. MAWN, JR., interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, in his official capacity, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:24-cv-40030-MRG (D. Mass.), Judge Margaret R. Guzman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct limited discovery. Plaintiffs Jason Courtemanche, Brett Foresman, Juan Rios, and Dennis Williams bring this putative class-action lawsuit against Defendants Motorola Solutions, Inc., Callyo 2009 Corp., SHI International Corp., and the Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police in his official capacity. The Defendants have each filed motions to dismiss, which the Court will address in a separate order. The Plaintiffs filed their complaint against John E. Mawn, Jr., who was interim Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police at the time. Since Mawn is no longer Superintendent, his successor is automatically substituted as a party. The Court takes judicial notice that on Oct. 4, 2024, it was announced that Geoffrey D. Noble was selected as the next Superintendent (Press Release, Governor Healey Names Geoffrey D. Noble as Massachusetts State Police Colonel (Oct. 4, 2024)). Since Defendant Mawn no longer holds this title, his successor in interest, Noble, is automatically substituted for purposes of the official capacity claims. In essence, the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") alleges that the Massachusetts State Police ("MSP") unlawfully recorded the contents of conversations between officers and the Plaintiffs, then used the intercepted recordings to pursue criminal charges against the Plaintiffs and others. The Plaintiffs also allege that Motorola, Callyo, and SHI "willfully procured MSP" in committing the alleged interceptions by providing the MSP with intercepting devices and storing the recordings on Motorola's server. As a result of these alleged violations, the Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against all Defendants with claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as well as other claims against various subsets of defendants. Relevant to this motion, the Plaintiffs bring claims for unfair and deceptive acts or practices under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A ("Chapter 93A") against Motorola and Callyo in Count II, and against SHI in Count VI. In their motions to dismiss, Motorola, Callyo, and SHI argue that the Plaintiffs' Chapter 93A claim should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a business, commercial, or transactional relationship between them and Motorola/Callyo/SHI. Judge Guzman notes that the motion for limited discovery before the Court is an attempt by the Plaintiffs to establish such a relationship by determining whether Motorola, Callyo, or SHI profited off the recordings of the Plaintiffs, perhaps by "analyzing MSP's intercepted oral communications, creating new Motorola/Callyo products and services, and operating, maintaining, managing, and improving Motorola/Callyo's products and service." The Plaintiffs state that Motorola and Callyo are the only parties, who could identify the extent to which they or other third-parties have used the license granted to them by the MSP for profit. They allege that if they are not allowed to conduct discovery for this purpose, they will be "denied the opportunity to determine the extent of their damages and potential additional defendants." The Court is unconvinced that allowing the Plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery would be appropriate in this case. The Plaintiffs assert that they have properly alleged the factual basis for a business, commercial, or transactional relationship between them and Motorola or SHI; however, Judge Guzman opines, they rely exclusively on their allegations relating to Motorola, Callyo, and unknown third parties' usage of the license MSP allegedly granted to Motorola/Callyo. The Plaintiffs claim the recordings were distributed "for the purpose of, among other things, analyzing MSP's intercepted oral communications, creating new Motorola/Callyo products and services, and operating, maintaining, managing, and improving Motorola/Callyo's products and services." The issue, as the Defendants note, is that these allegations merely highlight the commercial relationship between Motorola/Callyo and the MSP, not any commercial relationship with the Plaintiffs, Judge Guzman points out. The Plaintiffs here have not plausibly provided a factual basis that would support how the limited discovery they seek could establish anything other than more information about the commercial relationship between the Defendants in question. Judge Guzman opines that there is little indication that the discovery requested will yield any information supporting the requisite commercial relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants in question. As such, Judge Guzman finds the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how the information sought could be relevant to bolstering their Chapter 93A claim. To allow limited discovery on these facts would amount to the type of "fishing expedition" the First Circuit has disallowed. For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to conduct limited discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bddradkn from PacerMonitor.com. NADAP INC: Court Okays Settlement Agreement in Fleming FLSA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the settlement agreement reached by the parties in the case captioned as VALLYN FLEMING, Plaintiff, -against- NADAP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-CV-8892 (VSB) (S.D.N.Y.). On November 19, 2024, the parties filed a joint letter motion seeking approval of the settlement agreement reached in this Fair Labor Standards Act case. Plaintiff's complaint alleges violations of the wage and overtime provisions of the New York Equal Pay Act. When seeking approval of a FLSA settlement, the plaintiff "must supply calculation addressing all possible sources of a plaintiff's potential damages." Settlement Amount Plaintiff asserts that if she had prevailed on her unpaid-wages claims, she would have received $9,379.54 in unpaid wages. Plaintiff argues that she was required to work about 3.5 hours of unpaid time per week from about October 2018 until March 2020. Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff would receive $9,000, less $3,000 in attorneys' fees, for an actual recovery of $6,000 or 63.969% of her possible recovery. The settlement amount is well within the range of reasonable recoveries, particularly given the litigation risks of this case. Defendants contend that Plaintiff was not required to work during the time she claims she was required to work. The parties engaged in one unsuccessful mediation attempt before a court-appointed mediator, and could have engaged in expensive motion practice and trial. Such costly stages of litigation will be avoided through this settlement. The Parties state that the settlement sum "reflects a compromise of heavily disputed claims" from a second mediation attempt, further confirming the reasonableness of the settlement sum. Judge Broderick says that nothing in the record suggesting that the Settlement Agreement is tainted by fraud or collusion or that it is the product of anything less than arm's-length bargaining between experienced counsel. Such arm's-length bargaining occurred over several months, involved mediation, and the resulting settlement agreement has been accepted by both parties. Accordingly, the settlement sum is fair and reasonable given comparable cases in this District. Remaining Provisions The Settlement Agreement provides for a release of various claims. This release is restricted to: any and all claims of any kind arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act or any other rights to wages, known or unknown, that she has or may have based upon any conduct occurring up to and including the date Plaintiff executes this Agreement. According to the Court, although the language releases Defendants from claims known or unknown, that she has or may have based upon any conduct occurring up to and including the date Plaintiff executes the Settlement Agreement, the claims are limited to wage-related claims and are thus limited to conduct that arises out of the identical factual predicate as the settled conduct. Given that this release is expressly limited to FLSA and other wage-related claims that predate the Settlement Agreement, the terms are fair and reasonable, the Court finds. Attorneys' Fees Plaintiff's counsel's lodestar in this matter is $47,791.00. As an initial matter, the 181.62 hours spent on this matter, which include legal work for non-wage-and-labor claims that are not the subject of the Settlement Agreement, seems reasonable. However, Plaintiff's counsel's hourly billing rate of $475, is slightly higher than the rate that courts in this District have found to be reasonable. More fundamentally, Plaintiff's billing records are for all the work that Plaintiff's counsel did in this case, including the non-wage-and labor claims that are the subject of a separate settlement agreement that is not before Judge Broderick. Under a percentage-of-the-fund method, Judge Broderick finds that the proposed attorneys' fees amount of $3,000 is reasonable. According to the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's counsel will receive $3,000 in fees and expenses, which is a third of Plaintiff's total recovery. Given this, the Court finds the requested attorneys' fees and costs under the Settlement Agreement to be fair and reasonable. Judge Broderick concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable. Therefore, the Parties' joint motion seeking an order approving the Settlement Agreement is granted. Plaintiff's Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth causes of action for unequal pay under the New York Equal Pay Act, unpaid overtime under the FLSA, and unpaid overtime under the New York Labor Law and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, respectively, are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Judge Broderick does not state an opinion regarding Plaintiff's First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth causes of action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WFtjhc NC BANK: Fails to Pay Mortgage Loan Officers' Pay Under NJWHL ------------------------------------------------------------- ALLA GUREVICH, individually, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NC BANK, Case No. 2:24-cv-11376 (D.N.J., Dec. 20, 2024) seeks to recover overtime wages, and other damages for the Plaintiff and her similarly situated co-workers -- mortgage loan officers -- who work or have worked for PNC Bank in the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and similarly situated MLOs in New Jersey pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to remedy violations of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. Gurevich was employed by Defendant as a MLO in New Jersey from on or around Dec. 14, 2018 until Oct. 31, 2020. He is a covered employee within the meaning of the NJWHL. PNC is a national banking and financial services company operating throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com dcimera@fslawfirm.com - and - Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP, LLC 100 First Avenue, Suite 650 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 227-0763 Facsimile: (412) 774-1994 E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Bloom Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Karen Bloom, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Omni Family Health, Case No. BCV-24-103643 was removed from the Superior Court Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-01574-JLT-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network providing primary and preventative healthcare located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com The Defendant is represented by: Tambry L. Bradford, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 928-9805 Email: tambry.bradford@troutman.com - and - Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com OPTUMRX INC: Rich Apothecary Sues Over Unlawful Conduct ------------------------------------------------------- Rich Apothecary, Inc., doing business as Lake Elmo Pharmacy, and D&K Pharmacy, Inc., doing business as Keaveny Drug, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OPTUMRX INC, as corporate successor to CATAMARAN CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-13116 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for damages brought by independently owned community pharmacies, Plaintiffs Lake Elmo and Keaveny Drug ("Plaintiffs"), arising from the unlawful conduct of defendant Catamaran Corporation ("Catamaran"), a pharmacy benefit manager ("PBM") that effectively controls a large portion of Plaintiffs' income by determining the amount of reimbursement it receives for generic prescription medications. Independent pharmacies like Plaintiffs play an essential role in the multibillion-dollar prescription drug market by offering their customers uniquely personalized service and counseling that is not available at large retail chains. Independent pharmacies like Plaintiffs are small-business entrepreneurs, rooted in their communities, whose ability to compete in a free and fair marketplace is gravely threatened by PBMs. During the period from January 1, 2015 to July 24, 2015 Plaintiffs and the class were subjected to economic losses as a result of commercially unreasonable reimbursements paid by Catamaran for generic drugs. Catamaran's conduct violated not only explicit contractual terms between the parties but also the requirements of good faith, and fair dealing attendant to those contracts, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are two of an estimated 23,000 independently owned (i.e., not owned by a publicly held company) pharmacies which were doing business in the United States in 2015. Catamaran Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Schaumburg, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Lubin, Esq. Patrick Austermuehle, Esq. LUBIN AUSTERMUEHLE, P.C. 17W220 22nd St #410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Phone: (630) 333-0333 Email: peter@l-a.law patrick@l-a.law - and - Mark R. Cuker, Esq. Mark R. Rosen, Esq. CUKER LAW FIRM, LLC 500 Office Center Drive, Suite 400 Ft. Washington, PA 19034 Phone: (267) 925-7800 - and - Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Matthew J. Matern, Esq. Joshua D. Boxer, Esq. Corey B. Bennett, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP, PC 2101 E. El Segundo Blvd., Suite 403 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 531-1900 OUTRIGGER HOTELS HAWAII: Nacario Files Suit in Haw. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against OUTRIGGER HOTELS HAWAII, et al. The case is styled as Mary Consuela Nacario, Belinda Ordonez, Florence Corrales, Marilyn Gacula, Noemilyn Galanto, Estrelita Untalan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OUTRIGGER HOTELS HAWAII, First Circuit Court 18th Division, Case No. 1CCV-24-0001816 (Haw. Dist. Ct., Island Oahu, Dec. 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Circuit Court Civil." Outrigger Resorts & Hotels -- https://www.outrigger.com/ -- is a Honolulu-based luxury hotel chain and management company that operates hotels, condominiums, and vacation resort properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON LAW GROUP LLLP Topa Financial Center Fort St Tower 745 Fort St., Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 PROFIRE ENERGY: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With First Ceco ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Profire Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ: PFIE), relating to a proposed merger with First CECO Environmental Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, a subsidiary of CECO will commence a tender offer to acquire all issued and outstanding shares of Profire common stock at a price of $2.55 per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on December 31, 2024. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/profire-energy-inc-pfie/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Poseida Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSTX), relating to the proposed merger with Roche Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Poseida Therapeutics will be acquired at a price of $9.00 per share in cash at closing, plus a non-tradeable CVR to receive certain contingent payments of up to an aggregate of $4.00 per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on January 7, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/poseida-therapeutics-inc-pstx/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Arch Resources, Inc. (NYSE: ARCH), relating to its proposed merger with Consol Energy, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, all Arch Resources common stock will be automatically converted into the right to receive 1.326 shares of Consol Energy stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 9, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/arch-resources-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Barnes Group Inc. (NYSE: B), relating to its proposed merger with Apollo Global Management, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, all Barnes Group common stock will be converted into the right to receive $47.50 in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 9, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/barnes-group-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Court Certifies Class in Knight Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted the plaintiff's motion to certify the class in the case captioned as ERIK KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, PLAINTIFF vs. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:22-CV-203-JM (E.D. Ark.). This is a purported class action challenging Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company's calculation of the actual cash value of an insured's car after it was declared a total loss. Pending is Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The motion has been fully briefed and a hearing was held in May of this year. Erik Night owned a 2001 Chevrolet Silverado truck that was involved in an accident on August 28, 2020. He was insured by Progressive who determined that his truck was a total loss. His policy required Progressive to determine the actual cash value of his vehicle by its "market value, age, and condition" at the time of loss. Progressive uses a valuation report provided by a third party, Mitchell International, Inc. to determine a vehicle's ACV. The Mitchell reports use a database to identify comparable vehicles for sale in the insured's area and adjust their advertised prices for differences in features, mileage, and configuration. Beyond these adjustments, Mitchell applies a Projected Sold Adjustment (PSA), which Plaintiff alleges is arbitrary, unjustified, and inconsistent with industry appraisal standards. In Plaintiff's case, two comparable vehicles had PSAs of $728 and $841 applied, reducing the vehicle's valuation. Plaintiff claims this practice breached the insurance policy, causing him $392.25 in damages, and has filed suit for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The only aspect of Progressive's method of calculating ACV challenged by Plaintiff is the PSA deduction. Otherwise, he and his experts agree that the Mitchell report produces an ACV that complies with the policy. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class on his breach of contract claim: All persons who made a first-party claim on a policy of insurance issued by Progressive Northwestern Insurance Company to an Arkansas resident where the claim was submitted from August 4, 2017, through the date an order granting class certification is entered, and Progressive determined that the vehicle was a total loss and based its claim payment on an Instant Report from Mitchell where a Projected Sold Adjustment was applied to at least one comparable vehicle. Plaintiff is seeking to have the class certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), which requires a finding "that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." Numerosity Plaintiff easily meets the numerosity requirement. Progressive produced claims data showing thousands of potential class members. Joinder of all affected persons is impracticable. This objective claims data evidence also establishes that the class is ascertainable. Commonality and predominance It is undisputed that Plaintiff and the proposed class were parties to insurance policies with Progressive. It is also undisputed that Progressive had an obligation to pay "the actual cash value of . . . . the damaged property at the time of the loss reduced by the applicable deductible." The policy states that "[t]he actual cash value is determined by the market value, age, and condition at the time the loss occurs." Plaintiff's complaint raises two common questions regarding the other two elements needed to prove breach of contract. One is whether Progressive breached its contract by calculating an "artificially reduced" ACV when it deducted the PSA from comparable vehicles. Plaintiff's appraisal expert, Jason Merritt, gives the opinion that the negotiation adjustment reflected in the PSA is inconsistent with industry appraisal standards. Whether a jury would agree that this practice is a breach of the contract, the answer to this common question will resolve the element of breach. The other common question relates to damages for this alleged breach. Plaintiff asserts that using Progressive's method of relying on the Mitchell reports—absent any PSA deductions—would result in a proper determination of ACV. This damages model is consistent with Plaintiff's theory of liability. Progressive argues that the PSA's propriety is not the central issue, as the key question is whether Progressive paid each class member the actual cash value (ACV) of their vehicle, which requires individualized analysis. However, Plaintiff asserts that applying PSA deductions breaches the contract to determine ACV, and removing these deductions would result in a proper ACV from which individual damages can be calculated. The Court, agreeing with similar rulings from other district courts, found that the common question of the PSA's legality satisfies the predominance requirement, even if damages require individualized calculations. Typicality and adequacy Turning to the typicality and adequacy requirements, the Court finds that both are satisfied in this case. Plaintiff's claim that Progressive breached the contract by determining ACV using PSA deductions is based on the same legal theory as those of the class. Likewise, his claim that backing out the PSA deductions would yield a non-breaching ACV is the same damages model proposed for the class. The evidence submitted in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification regarding the identical policy language, Progressive's uniform practice of accepting the PSA deductions to total-loss claims, and the handling of his own claim demonstrate that his claim is typical of the that of the proposed class. The Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that he can fairly and adequately protect the class members' interests as required by Rule 23(a)(4). He has submitted evidence that he qualifies as a member of the class and that he has suffered the same injury for which he seeks recovery on behalf of the class. The declaration of Hank Bates shows that he has retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, counsel whose qualifications have not been challenged by Progressive. The Court therefore appoints Plaintiff as class representative and appoints his lawyers as class counsel. Superiority Plaintiff has submitted evidence that his damages are less than $400.00. In her report, Plaintiff's statistician expert Dr. Lacey found that of the 148 sample claim files she reviewed, 14612 applied PSAs to one or more comparable vehicles. The average adjustment for these claims was under $600. The Court finds that potential awards in these small amounts would make individual litigation cost prohibitive. And while there are a number of very similar actions relating to PSA pending against Progressive in other circuits, the Court has not been made aware of any cases competing with the claims of this proposed class of Arkansas residents. Plaintiff has convinced the Court that a class action is the superior method for proceeding with this action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4FvI6n QUICK BOX: Agrees to $5.5-Mil. La Pura Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Quick Box LLC agreed to a $5.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve allegations it used a fake free trial scheme to sell La Pura cosmetics. The Quick Box class action settlement benefits consumers billed for La Pura products between June 20, 2016, and Sept. 9, 2024. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Quick Box offered customers a free trial of the products as long as they paid for shipping and handling but then used their credit card or bank account information to bill them for subscriptions they never signed up for. Quick Box is a fulfillment company that ships products for other companies. Quick Box hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $5.5 million to resolve the false advertising class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Quick Box settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of La Pura products they purchased. Payments will vary depending on the number of eligible claims filed. Any funds remaining in the La Pura class action settlement after payments have been distributed will be donated to the National Consumer Law Center. The final approval hearing for the La Pura products settlement is scheduled for Jan. 6, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 5, 2025. Who's Eligible Quick Box consumers billed for La Pura products between June 20, 2016, and Sept. 9, 2024 Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase No proof of purchase is required. Payment will be based on purchase records. NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/05/2025 Case Name Tan v. Quick Box LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01082, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Final Hearing 01/06/2025 Settlement Website LaPuraClassActionSettlement.com Claims Administrator Tan v. Quick Box Settlement Administrator PO Box 2449 Portland, OR 97208-2449 (877) 658-0293 Class Counsel Kevin Kneupper Cyclone Covey KNEUPPER & COVEY PC Defense Counsel David T. Biderman Thomas J. Tobin PERKINS COIE LLP [GN] REBBL INC: Roffman Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against REBBL, INC. The case is styled as Mehva Roffman, on behalf of herself, the general public, and those similarly situated v. REBBL, INC., Case No. CGC24620772 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 19, 2024). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." REBBL, Inc. -- https://rebbl.com/ -- produces soft drinks. The Company offers proteins, fruit juices, and nutrition products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-336-6545 Email: chamner@hamnerlaw.com REEL PRODUCE INC: Lima Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Reel Produce, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Hugo Rivera Lima, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reel Produce, Inc., Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC24620797 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Dec. 20, 2024). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." REEL Produce -- https://reelproduce.com/ -- is a family owned and operated business with over 37-year combined experience in the produce industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Kirk Donnelly, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF J. KIRK DONNELLY APC 2173 Salk Ave. Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: 760-209-5894 Email: kdonnelly@jkd-law.com RELOGISTICS SERVICES: Taylor Sues to Recover Compensation --------------------------------------------------------- Rodrigo Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC and 48FORTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-00893-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought to recover compensation, double and/or triple damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"). The Defendants willfully and/or knowingly violated the FLSA and Virgina law by intentionally failing to pay for all hours worked and overtime wages despite requiring Forklift Operators and Team Leads to work such hours. The Defendants intended to deprive Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals of certain wages owed and overtime pay to which they were entitled or acted with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and those similarly situated. This Complaint seeks relief for claims for unpaid wages and overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, VWPA, and VOWA arising out of work that Plaintiff and others similarly situated performed for the benefit and at the direction of reLogistics, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by reLogistics from August 15, 2022 to May 2, 2023. reLogistics Services, LLC is a Delaware LLC registered to transact business in the Commonwealth of Virginia. reLogistics Services, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica L. Mroz, Esq. Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT LAW 4227 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24018 Phone: 540-283-0802 Email: monica@vaemployment.law brittany@vaemployment.law RENEWAL BY ANDERSEN: Thompson Files TCPA Suit in D. South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renewal by Andersen LLC. The case is styled as Clay Ashmore Thompson, Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Renewal by Andersen LLC doing business as: Renewal by Andersen LLC, Case No. 7:24-cv-07459-JDA (D.S.C., Dec. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Renewal by Andersen -- https://www.renewalbyandersen.com/ -- provides a wide selection of replacement windows and patio doors across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Timbes, Esq. Sarah Danielle Baum, Esq. Thomas J. Rode, Esq. THURMOND KIRCHNER AND TIMBES PA 15 Middle Atlantic Wharf, Suite 101 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: (843) 937-8000 Fax: (843) 937-4200 Email: michael@tktlawyers.com sarah@tktlawyers.com thomas@tktlawyers.com SAINT THOMAS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Germano Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DANNI GERMANO ,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS HIGH SCHOOLM INC., Case No. CACE-24-018194 (Fla. Cir, Broward Cty., Dec. 20, 2024) arises out of the recent data incident and data breach that was perpetrated against the Defendant which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other current and former students of the Defendant's school, the putative class members. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal of Defendant St. Thomas's current and former students and their families, including the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the data breach resulted from the Defendants failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which it was entrusted for business relationships. SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS HIGH SCHOOL INC. is a private, Catholic, college-preparatory high school in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574 4999 Facsimile: (833) 423 5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Khan Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. The case is styled as Mamnoon Khan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-13084 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust. Sedgwick -- https://www.sedgwick.com/ -- is a leading global provider of technology-enabled risk, benefits and integrated business solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael M. Mulder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. MULDER 1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 600 Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: (312) 263-0272 Email: mmmulder@mmulderlaw.com SERRANO IMPORT: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. SERRANO IMPORT CORPORATION and BRASIL MANIA, INC. D/B/A BRAZIL MART, Case No. 1:24-cv-25002-RKA (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial plaza property and commercial market businesses to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial plaza property and commercial market business within the subject plaza in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and commercial market. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial market business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA The Defendants have 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, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. SERRANO IMPORT CORPORATION, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial plaza property, with all areas open to the public.[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 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@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 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com SIKA CORPORATION: Cook Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip J. Cook, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SIKA CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-11304 (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were and are employed by Defendant on a salary basis but perform FLSA overtime non-exempt work as roof inspectors who work over 40 hours per week but are not paid an overtime premium. To complete his job duties, Plaintiff was regularly required to work in excess of 50 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid only his salary and was not paid overtime. the Defendant has also suffered and permitted the FLSA Collective to regularly work more than 40 hours in a workweek without overtime pay. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective were not compensated in accordance with the FLSA because they were not paid proper overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Specifically, rather than paying them 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, which is required by the FLSA, Defendant's companywide policy and procedure was to pay only salary for all hours worked, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant from November 1, 1999 to the present. Sika Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located in Lyndhurst, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRJAU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Phone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, LLC 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com SKIMS BODY: Faces Alvarez Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- ISABEL ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SKIMS BODY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-10806 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 16, 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. On Nov. 19, 2024, Nov. 26, 2024, Dec. 10, 2024, at 6:08 AM and Dec. 13, 2024, at 6:01 AM, the Defendant sent text message solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. Overall, between Nov. 19, 2024, and December 13, 2024, the Defendant caused (8) eight marketing text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number before 8 am and after 9 pm. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Plaintiff never signed any type of authorization permitting or allowing Defendant to send them telephone solicitations before 8 am or after 9 pm, the suit says. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to the Plaintiff and the Class members, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Skims Body manufactures and sells women and men apparel.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: gerald@jibraellaw.com SMARTFOODS INC: Faces Class Suit Over Popcorn Preservatives ----------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Smartfoods Inc. and PepsiCo Inc. Why: The consumers claim PepsiCo and its subsidiary Smartfoods falsely advertise that its Smartfood White Cheddar Popcorn and Smartfood Movie Theater Butter Popcorn products contain "No Artificial Flavors" and "No Artificial Preservatives." Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges that PepsiCo and its subsidiary Smartfoods falsely advertise that their Smartfood White Cheddar Popcorn and Smartfood Movie Theater Butter Popcorn contain no artificial flavors or preservatives when they actually contain both of those things. A group of consumers claim the Smartfoods popcorns actually contain maltodextrin, a "highly processed and synthetic ingredient" used as both a preservative and flavoring agent. "Plaintiffs and Class members have reasonably relied on Defendants' deceptive labeling and advertising of the Products, reasonably believing that the Products do not contain artificial flavors or artificial preservatives," the class action says. The group wants to represent a California, Illinois and New York class of consumers who purchased the Smartfood White Cheddar Popcorn and Smartfood Movie Theater Butter Popcorn products. Consumers paid 'premium' price for Smartfoods popcorn, class action claims The consumers argue they paid a "premium price" for the Smartfoods popcorn products based on their advertising as being free of artificial flavors and preservatives. "Had Plaintiffs and Class members been aware of the truth about the Products, they would not have purchased them, or would have paid significantly less for them," the Smartfoods class action says. The class action lawsuit brings claims of unjust enrichment and violations of California, Illinois and New York consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory and punitive damages for themselves and all class members. Last month, an Illinois federal judge declined to throw out a class action lawsuit filed against Kraft Heinz over similar claims the company falsely marketed that a variety of its Kraft macaroni and cheese products contained no artificial flavors, preservatives or dyes. The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Abiri of Custodio & Dubey, LLP. The Smartfoods class action lawsuit is Wilson, et al. v. Smartfoods Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-12814, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] SOLID MANAGEMENT: Russian Court Dismisses Yandex Sale Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nik Flegont, writing for AIM Group, reports that the Arbitration Court in the Kaliningrad exclave of Russia has dismissed a class action lawsuit against Solid Management, the trustee of the closed-end mutual fund Consortium.First and Nebius Group, seeking to invalidate the sale of Yandex IT giant. Consortium.First is the new Russia-registered owner of Yandex, which it bought from the Netherlands-registered Yandex N.V., now known as Nebius Group. The lawsuit was filed last September by a group of 15 minority investors in Yandex N.V., who claimed they "were deprived of the opportunity to sell the company's shares at a fair price and receive income from the assets, which were sold to Consortium.First". The sale was completed in two stages between May and July, after which the new owner offered minority shareholders to exchange securities of Yandex N.V. for the papers of the new company. However, only those shareholders who had held their Yandex papers in Russian depositaries before the sale were entitled to the swap. When a number of them filed the suit, the new owner said the offer was voluntary and it was not under legal obligation to put it forward. Yandex owns the leading Russia-based marketplace classified Auto.ru, as well as Yandex Real Estate and Yandex Rent. [GN] SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Prison Inmates' Low-Wage Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Christian Boschult, writing for Post and Courier, reports that Any state prisoners who may have been paid too little for work while incarcerated are now part of a lawsuit accusing the S.C. Department of Corrections of illegally underpaying inmates after a judge gave the case class-action status. This means a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the case would cover all other similarly situated inmates, both current and former, as well as the children, spouses and estates of deceased inmates who may have a claim. Four inmates -- Damon Jones, Jason Turmon, Ronnie McCoy and Kevin Casey -- sued SCDC in September. They alleged they were paid only minimum wage for their work at Shaw Industries instead of the federally mandated “prevailing wage” that similarly employed people in the private sector would earn. SCDC denied the allegations. Officials said state law mandates only that the inmates be paid at least federal minimum wage, which has been set at $7.25 an hour since 2009, but that some inmates earned more than that. The agency also pointed to a law that allows deductions for taxes, social security and room and board from inmates' paychecks. The result is that inmates often work for lower wages than employees in the private sector, then only get to keep a fraction of the lower pay. "That money is used to build a better life for them, to build a new life for them, to build a legacy for their children and their spouses and help them advance and step up the ladder," said Tom Winslow of Winslow Law Firm, the attorney representing the inmates. "This is a worker's rights case," he added, "where they just want literally what they've earned." Neither Shaw Industries nor SCDC claimed the inmates as employees. SCDC said Shaw employed the men, and Shaw said they were SCDC employees. The men, who were incarcerated at Tyger River Correctional Facility in Enoree, held woodworking jobs at Shaw. Their lawsuit said the the prevailing wage for a woodworker is $16.36 an hour -- more than double their base pay. Last month, the state asked for the case to be dismissed while the inmates sought to expand it into a class action, paving the way for other inmates and former inmates to sign on. The inmates said they'd found 100 other people in the same situation as the plaintiffs who weren't represented by other attorneys. After oral arguments on Oct. 18, Judge Jessica Salvini agreed and granted the inmates' motion to certify the case as a class action. Winslow said other inmates have filed claims in administrative court, but his suit is the only one in circuit court and the only one currently proceeding as a class action. SCDC filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider the ruling. [GN] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Layton Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cristina D. Silva of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the case captioned as Thomas R. Layton, Plaintiff v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01225-CDS-EJY (D. Nev.). This action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff Thomas R. Layton brings this putative nationwide class action against defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, his mortgage servicer, for manipulating the posting of payments to generate unwarranted late fees and needlessly send their accounts into default. In August 2024, SLS filed a notice indicating that the parties had reached a settlement in principle of all claims. Layton now gives notice, by way of motion to dismiss, that this action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Although SLS did not file a response to the motion, it indicated during a status conference before Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on December 9, 2024, that settlement documents were finalized, and settlement is complete. Thus, there is no indication that SLS will suffer prejudice to legal interest, claim, or argument as a result of dismissal as this matter has been fully resolved. Moreover, if this matter is dismissed with prejudice—such that the claims cannot be reasserted—it is less likely that SLS will suffer any legal prejudice. Judge Silva says that she cannot identify any specific legal prejudice SLS would suffer from voluntary dismissal given the posture of this case. Nor, in stating their position, has SLS articulated any prejudice, legal or otherwise, that would befall it should the court grant Layton's request. Thus, dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ra3q2I SPRING REFLEXOLOGY: Xia Sues Over Unlawful Employment Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Yuewen Xia, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Spring Reflexology Spa Inc., Lai Sheng Qian, Helen "Doe," Case No. 2:24-cv-11311-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., Dec. 19, 2024), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL" hereinafter), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices for failure to pay minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage compensation for all hours worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least the New Jersey minimum wage for each hour worked. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed as a staff from October 17, 2021, to July 15, 2024. Spring Reflexology Spa Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yubo Li, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G Flushing, NY 11354 Email: yli@hanglaw.com SRP FEDERAL CREDIT: Allen Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ------------------------------------------------------------ Lataveia Allen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SRP Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:24-cv-07476-CMC (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, Plaintiff's and Class Members' name, date of birth, Social Security number ("SSN"), and financial account information (collectively, "Private Information" or "PII"). In order to provide insurance financial services to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant required Plaintiff and Class Members to provide their Private Information to Defendant. On November 22, 2024, Defendant learned that an unauthorized person was making data available that was allegedly taken from a SRP Federal Credit Union database (the "Data Breach"). Further investigation determined that and unknown and unauthorized third party accessed Defendant's computer systems sometime between September 5, 2024, and November 4, 2024. The Defendant issued Notice of the Data Breach Letter (the "Notice of Breach Letter") on December 12, 2024. Based on the Notice of Data Breach Letter, Defendant admits that Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was unlawfully accessed and exfiltrated. Moreover, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was then made available online, meaning their Private Information is exposed and has or likely will be used by cybercriminals for unlawful purposes. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless and negligent manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattack. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to the Defendant and thus the Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure Private Information from those risks left that information in a dangerous condition. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the attack and the substantial and imminent risk of identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff directly or indirectly entrusted Defendant with sensitive and confidential information. SRP Federal Credit Union has operated as a member-owned financial institution, providing a range of financial products and services to individuals and families in South Carolina and Georgia since 1960.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle Esq. POULIN | WILEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Fax: 843-494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 227 West Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: (612) 336-2940 Email: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com SRP FEDERAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Black Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- NORMAN BLACK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:24-cv-07519-CMC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2024) alleges that Defendant failed to properly use up-to-date security practices to prevent the Data Breach. Between Sept. 5, 2024, and Nov. 4, 2024, SRP, a credit union headquartered in South Carolina, discovered it had lost control over its computer network and the highly sensitive personal information stored on its computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals ("Data Breach"). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class trusted Defendant with their customers' personally identifiable information. But Defendant betrayed that trust. The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant and Data Breach victim. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before the Data Breach, the private information of Plaintiff and the Class was exactly that -- private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is permanently exposed and unsecure, the suit contends. Accordingly, the Data Breach has impacted thousands of current and former customers. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to customers' PII, including but not limited to names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and date of birth. On Dec. 12, 2024, SRP finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach ("Breach Notice"). Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity, failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors, vendors, and suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class' PII -- rendering it an easy target for cybercriminals. The Defendant's Breach Notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it posted -- refusing to tell its customers how many people were impacted, how the breach happened, when the breach was discovered, or why Defendant delayed notifying victims that cybercriminals had gained access to their highly private information.   The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII, the suit further alleges. SRP FEDERAL CREDIT UNION is a credit union headquartered in South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karolan Ohanesian, Esq. Glenn V. Ohanesian, Esq. OHANESIAN LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2433 Myrtle Beach, SC 29578 Telephone: (843) 626-7193 Facsimile: (843) 492-5164 E-mail: OhanesianLawFirm@cs.com - and - Raina Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610  Chicago, IL 0611  Telephone: (872) 263-1100  Facsimile: (872) 263-1109   E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com STEAM LOGISTICS: Shelton Files FLSA Suit in E.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Steam Logistics, LLC. The case is styled as Blanche Shelton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Steam Logistics, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00393-CLC-SKL (E.D. Tenn., Dec. 19, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Steam Logistics -- https://www.steamlogistics.com/ -- is a leading third-party logistics partner that enables shippers to achieve their supply chain goals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caitlin Opperman, Esq. Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55427 STOP & SHOP: Lovett Sues Over Potato Chips' Deceptive Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ ERNESTINE LOVETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE STOP & SHOP SUPERMARKET COMPANY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 534727/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., December 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of potato chips under the Stop & Shop brand. The Defendant described the product as "Salt and Vinegar Flavored," next to a salt shaker and a cruet, amply filled with an amber liquid, evocative of vinegar, and/or apple cider vinegar. However, the product is adulterated, because the valuable constituent of vinegar has been in whole or in part omitted or abstracted, based on the fine print ingredients, listed in order of predominance by weight, on the back of the package. The product also contains sodium diacetate and malic acid, listed fourth and sixth, ahead of, and present in greater amounts, and/or quantities, than the promoted salt, vinegar, and natural flavor. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the Plaintiff and the Class were injured and suffered damages by paying a price premium for the product, says the suit. The Stop & Shop Supermarket Company LLC is an operator of grocery stores in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. Sheehan & Associates P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 412 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies Class in Carlson Wage Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned as DAVID CARLSON, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-05722-RJB (W.D. Wash.). Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Carlson, a Washington resident long haul truck driver, brings this case against his employer, Defendant Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, for violation of Washington state Minimum Wage Act overtime provision, RCW Sec. 49.46.130(1). Under RCW Sec. 49.46.130(1), unless an exception applies, employers must pay employees at least one and one half their regular rate of pay for a workweek longer than forty hours. The Plaintiff seeks damages, declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and class certification. Swift asserts, as an affirmative defense, that its employee drivers are exempt under RCW Sec. 49.46.130(2)(f) because they are paid the "reasonable equivalent" of overtime. Plaintiff Carlson now moves for certification of a class of Washington residents who drive for Swift. He also makes a request for judicial notice. Motion for Judicial Notice Plaintiff's request for judicial notice (Dkt. 33) should be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff Carlson asks the Court to take judicial notice of a Washington Department of Labor and Industries policy related to the definition of hours worked under Washington law. According to the Court, this request goes to the merits of Plaintiff Carlson's claim and is unnecessary to decide the question of whether a class should be certified. No further analysis need be done on the request at this time. Motion to Certify Plaintiff Carlson moves to certify the class defined as: All current or former Washington residents who worked for Defendant as drivers paid on a per mile basis at any time beginning three (3) years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class. He also moves to be appointed class representative and for Joshua H. Haffner and Trevor Weinberg of Haffner Law PC to be appointed as class counsel. Plaintiff Carlson's Motion for Class Certification should be granted. Plaintiff Carlson seeks class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Swift argues that Plaintiff Carlson fails to meet the Rule 23(a)(2) commonality and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority requirements. Numerosity – Rule 23(a)(1) Plaintiff Carlson has pointed out that there are, or have been, over 900 drivers Swift paid mileage-based pay who had, or have, a residential address in Washington within the class period. He has adequately shown that the class is sufficiently large that joinder of all members is impracticable. Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement is satisfied. Commonality – Rule 23(a)(2) Whether Swift's compensation policies violate the MWA overtime provisions for Washington resident drivers, raises common questions that would generate common answers for the entire class based on classwide evidence. Classwide evidence includes, but is not limited to, (a) Swift's compensation polices, which apply the same way to all Washington resident drivers, (b) Swift's records, which can be used to identify Washington residents and the drivers' time records. Swift argues that a determination of whether the "reasonable equivalent overtime" exemption in RCW Sec. 49.46.130(2)(f) applies must be made driver by driver. The Court finds Plaintiff Carlson has sufficiently shown that whether the exemption applies is not a driver-by-driver issue. He has shown that Swift's compensation system applies to all class members and that this compensation system arguably does not compensate for all hours. Swift also attacks the merits of the Plaintiff's theory that Swift is not properly paying drivers overtime. A merits decision is not necessary to decide whether to certify a class and is premature at this juncture. A classwide proceeding would generate common answers to questions like whether Swift is properly compensating Washington resident drivers. Commonality is met. Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied. Typicality – Rule 23(a)(3) Plaintiff Carlson's claims for violation of Washington's overtime pay statute is typical of the class. Putative class members assert the same injury, not being properly paid overtime, caused by the same non-unique conduct, Swift's compensation policies. Rule 23(a)(3) is satisfied. Adequacy – Rule 23(a)(4) Plaintiff Carlson has shown that he would "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." There is no showing that Plaintiff Carlson or class counsel has a conflict of interest with other class members. Swift does not contest the adequacy of Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff Carlson has agreed to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the class. Rule 23(a)(4) is met. Predominance - Rule 23(b)(3) The Court finds Plaintiff Carlson has shown that common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Classwide determinations, based on classwide evidence, can be made on: (a) whether Washington's MWA overtime law applies to the Plaintiff and putative class and (b) whether Swift's compensation policies violate the MWA's overtime provisions. The Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement is satisfied. Superiority - Rule 23(b)(3) The Court determined that a class action is the best method to resolve the dispute. The relatively small individual claims make it unlikely for putative class members to pursue cases independently. No evidence suggests other members have initiated litigation, and centralizing the case in this forum offers advantages. Managing the class is no more challenging than typical class actions, and identifying members and pay owed can be done through Swift's records. The Rule 23(b)(3) superiority requirement is satisfied. The following class is certified: All current or former Washington residents who worked for Defendant as drivers paid on a per mile basis at any time beginning three (3) years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class. Plaintiff David Carlson IS appointed class representative, Joshua H. Haffner and Trevor Weinberg of Haffner Law PC are appointed as class counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=j6MkVS TAUBER REALTY: Brito Sues Over ADA Breaches of Commercial Property ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. TAUBER REALTY, LLC; and PRIME PRODUCE CORP. d/b/a MR. FRESH FARMERS MARKET, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24848-XXXX (S.D. Fla., December 11, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and businesses located within that 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. Tauber Realty, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida. [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 TAYMAN INDUSTRIES: Villarreal Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Villarreal, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. TAYMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24CU023222C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on Dec. 20, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-02413-BEN-VET. The Complaint asserts the following 9 causes of action: Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage and Straight Time Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Irene V. Fitzgerald, Bar No. 266949 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200 North Palm Avenue, Ste. 302 Fresno, CA 93704-2225 Phone: 559.244.7500 Fax: 559.244.7525 Email: IFitzgerald@littler.com - and - Heidi E. Hegewald, Bar No. 326834 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Phone: 619.232.0441 Fax: 619.232.4302 Email: hhegewald@littler.com UNITED SERVICES: Settles 2021 Breach Class Action for $3.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that United Services Automobile Association has agreed to a $3.25 million settlement. United Services Automobile Association has agreed to a $3.25 million settlement to end class action claims that USAA's negligence led to a 2021 data breach that exposed people's personal information. Plaintiff Vincent Dolan filed the request for preliminary approval of the settlement on Dec. 11 in a New York federal court. According to the court filing, the data breach happened around May 6, 2021, when USAA's insurance quotation system was attacked, exposing sensitive information including people's driver's license numbers. Victims were notified about the breach a month later. After the breach, Dolan filed a lawsuit accusing USAA of negligence and violations of consumer protection and privacy laws. A second lawsuit was subsequently filed, with both cases later consolidated. USAA does not admit liability, court docs say The settlement proposed by Dolan would establish a $3.25 million fund which would be distributed among all eligible class members without requiring claim forms, court documents say. Eligible individuals who do not opt out of the settlement would receive equal shares of the fund, while any remaining funds may be redistributed or donated to public interest organizations. "This settlement provides significant cash benefits to Settlement Class Members whose information was potentially exposed," the court filing says. The motion also seeks to appoint Dolan as class representative and schedule further hearings to evaluate final approval. USAA said it will not admit liability, but supports the settlement. "By not opposing this relief, USAA does not concede the factual basis for any claim and denies liability," it said in the court filing. The court must grant preliminary approval before the USAA data breach settlement can proceed. Meanwhile, in September, a North Carolina federal judge granted preliminary approval to a $64 million settlement agreement resolving claims USAA Federal Savings Bank failed to provide service members with reduced interest rates as legally required. The plaintiffs are represented by Chris!an Levis, Amanda G. Fiorilla and Anthony M. Chris!na of Lowey Dannenberg PC, Thomas J. McKenna, Gregory M. Egleston and Christopher M. Brain of Gainey McKenna & Egleston, and Gary F. Lynch and Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch Carpenter LLP. The USAA settlement is Vincent Dolan et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No. 7:21-cv05813 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] UNIVERSAL STAINLESS: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Aperam US -------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc. (Nasdaq: USAP), relating to its proposed merger with Aperam US Absolute LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, all USAP shares will be automatically converted into the right to receive $45.00 per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 15, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/universal-stainless-alloy-products-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Nabors Industries Ltd. (NYSE: NBR), relating to its proposed merger with Parker Wellbore Co. Under the terms of the agreement, Nabors will acquire Parker Wellbore's issued and outstanding common shares in exchange for 4.8 million shares of Nabors common stock, subject to a share price collar. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 17, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nabors-industries-ltd-nbr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Altair Engineering Inc. (NASDAQ: ALTR), relating to a proposed merger with Siemens AG. Under the terms of the agreement Altair stockholders will receive $113.00 per share in cash. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for January 22, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/altair-engineering-inc-altr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SASR), relating to a proposed merger with Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, all Sandy Spring shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.900 Atlantic Union shares, and cash in lieu of fractional shares. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 5, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/sandy-spring-bancorp-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . . and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN] VGW HOLDINGS: N.D. Georgia Grants Bid to Dismiss Fair Gaming Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled FAIR GAMING ADVOCATES GEORGIA INC., Plaintiff v. VGW HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00901-TWT (N.D. Ga.). The lawsuit is a putative class action case. The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority. The case arises from the Defendants' operation of certain internet-based, casino-themed online games. The Plaintiff, a corporation, claims that the games violate a Georgia law that prohibits casino gambling and seeks recovery of the losses Georgia citizens sustained playing the games for a period of four years prior to the filing of the Complaint, excluding the six months immediately preceding that filing. As relevant to the present motions, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' casino gaming websites were accessible to Georgians via the internet. The Defendants do not have any offices or employees in Georgia except for two, non-executive employees, who live in Georgia and work remotely. The Plaintiff originally filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County and the Defendants removed the action to this Court on Feb. 28, 2024. The Defendants have moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has moved to remand this action to the Superior Court of Fulton County. The Plaintiff moves to remand this action on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over its claims, first because it has not suffered an injury in fact. Second, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants have argued in their Motion to Dismiss that the Plaintiff is permitted to sue only for one Georgia resident's gambling losses and that the Defendants failed to submit evidence showing that a single Georgia resident lost or spent more than $75,000 playing the Defendants' online games. The Defendants respond that the amount in controversy requirement is plainly satisfied, as evidenced by a declaration they submitted of Defendant VGW Holdings Ltd.'s general counsel that the amount of in-game expenditures by Georgia players during the relevant time period exceeds $150,000. While neither party disputes that the parties here are diverse, the Court confirms that diversity exists here. The Plaintiff is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business in Georgia, VGW Holdings is an Australian company with its principal place of business there, VGW Luckyland is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business there, and VGW Malta and VGW GP are Maltese companies with their principal places of business in Malta and with Australian membership. The Court also finds the amount in controversy requirement to be met here. The Defendants submitted evidence that, based on their records, that amount exceeds $150,000, and the Plaintiff has not rebutted that figure. As to the Plaintiff's argument regarding the Defendants' challenge in their Motion to Dismiss to the Plaintiff's ability to pursue a mass recovery action, Judge Thrash opines that the amount in controversy inquiry does not take into consideration the amounts the Plaintiff is likely to recover or arguments to that end. Therefore, the Defendants' evidence that the amount the Plaintiff seeks to recover exceeds $150,000 is sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied here. Judge Thrash also finds that the Plaintiff's arguments as to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss regarding standing are misplaced. As the Defendants concede, they have not raised a standing argument. Instead, the Defendants' argument goes to considerations of fairness to the parties in exercising personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and may go to the Plaintiff's ability to state a claim under O.C.G.A. Section 13-8-3(b), neither of which are relevant to the question of whether this action was properly removed to this Court. Therefore, because the Court has original diversity jurisdiction over this action, Judge Thrash says it was properly removed to this Court and the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand will be denied. The Defendants move to dismiss this action under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In short, they argue under Rule 12(b)(2) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them because they are not Georgia residents, and they lack sufficient minimum contacts with the state to be considered "at home" here. As to specific jurisdiction, the Defendants argue, among other things, that they have not "purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business in Georgia" and that considerations of fairness and justice weigh against a finding of personal jurisdiction. The Court finds that the Defendants' employees' residency in the state is not sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction on the Defendants under the Georgia long-arm statute. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction under the Georgia long-arm statute. Even if the Plaintiff had properly alleged a basis for personal jurisdiction over the Defendants under the long-arm statute, Judge Thrash points out that the exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with due process. The Defendants are also not subject to specific jurisdiction in Georgia. Accordingly, because the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over the Defendants, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss will be granted. As a result, the Court need not address the parties' arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). Although the Eleventh Circuit has not explicitly addressed whether a district court can rule on a motion to compel arbitration in the absence of, or without determining the issue of, personal jurisdiction, the weight of the persuasive authority counsels the Court against doing so, Judge Thrash opines, citing Hines v. Stamos, 111 F.4th 551, 560-61 (5th Cir. 2024). Therefore, Judge Thrash holds, the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration will be denied as moot. For these reasons, the Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration is denied as moot and their Motion to Dismiss is granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority is granted and its Motion to Remand is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants, and to close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/482mjzwn from PacerMonitor.com. VISA INC: Bueno Sues Over Alleged Monopoly in Debit Network Market ------------------------------------------------------------------ SPENCER BUENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISA INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08968 (N.D. Cal., December 11, 2024) alleges that Defendant has monopolized the market for debit network transactions; penalized industry participants that seek to use alternative debit networks; and paid off potential innovators and new entrants to the market to forestall or snuff out threats to its dominance in the debit network market. According to the complaint, the Defendant's systematic efforts to maintain its monopoly in the debit network market have resulted in significant additional fees imposed on American consumers and businesses and slowed innovation in the debit network market. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct, asserting claims for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Headquartered in San Francisco Bay Area, Visa Inc. is a global payments company that operates a debit network in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yavar Bathaee, Esq. Andrew C. Wolinsky, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 445 Park Avenue, 9th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone.: (332) 322-8835 E-mail: yavar@bathaeedunne.com awolinsky@bathaeedunne.com - and - Brian J. Dunne, Esq. Edward M. Grauman, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 901 South MoPac Expressway Barton Oaks Plaza I, Suite 300 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (213) 462-2772 E-mail: bdunne@bathaeedunne.com egrauman@bathaeedunne.com - and - Allison Watson, Esq. BATHAEE DUNNE LLP 3420 Bristol Street, Suite 600 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (213) 458-7075 E-mail: awatson@bathaeedunne.com W.R.R. PETROLEUM: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals v. W.R.R. PETROLEUM CORPORATION and 32 AVE VALERO CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-25003-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the "Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are disabled. Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act. The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since 1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of Defendants' property and the businesses therein. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial gas station and mini mart businesses to be rife with ADA violations, despite having been previously sued by other Plaintiffs for ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial gas station and mini mart business within the subject gas station and mini mart in violation of the ADA and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property and commercial gas station and mini mart. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial gas station and mini mart business have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Defendants have 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, as prohibited by the ADA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. W.R.R. PETROLEUM CORPORATION, owned and continue to own a commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Primary Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com WALGREENS CO: Agrees to Settle Prescription Class Suit for $100MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Walgreens agreed to a $100 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged insurance companies more than it should have for prescription drugs. The Walgreens Prescription Savings Club settlement benefits consumers and entities who paid for one or more prescription drugs from Walgreens between Jan. 1, 2007, and Nov. 18, 2024, and used prescription insurance benefits to fill the prescription. Plaintiffs in the prescription prices class action lawsuit accused Walgreens of inflating its “usual and customary” prices for prescription drugs by failing to consider the prices it charged under its Prescription Savings Club program. By inflating these prices, Walgreens allegedly caused insurers and other third parties to reimburse Walgreens for more than they should have. Walgreens is a pharmacy chain that sells prescription drugs, over-the-counter medications and other products. Walgreens hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $100 million settlement to resolve the prescription prices class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Walgreens Prescription Savings Club settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the amount they paid for eligible prescription drugs during the class period. Individual claimants will receive a proportional share of 20% of the net settlement fund. Similarly, third-party payors can receive a proportional share of 80% of the net settlement fund based on the amount they paid for eligible prescription drugs. The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 18, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Walgreens settlement is scheduled for Sept. 10, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by April 17, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers and entities who paid for one or more prescription drugs from Walgreens between Jan. 1, 2007, and Nov. 18, 2024, and used prescription insurance benefits to fill the prescription Potential Award Varies Proof of Purchase Proof of payment (receipts, cancelled checks, invoices, statements or other transaction records) Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 04/17/2025 Case Name Russo, et al. v. Walgreen Co., No. 1:17-cv-02246, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Final Hearing 09/10/2025 Settlement Website SavingsClubSettlement.com Claims Administrator In re Walgreens Savings Club Litigation Settlement Administrator c/o A.B. Data Ltd. P.O. Box 173067 Milwaukee, WI 53217 info@SavingsClubSettlement.com (877) 888-8386 Class Counsel David Mitchell Arthur L Shingler III ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Joseph P Guglielmo Erin G Comite SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP Defense Counsel Selina P Coleman REED SMITH LLP [GN] WHEEL BAGELS: Vazquez Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------ JUAN ANGEL REYES VAZQUEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WHEEL BAGELS INC. d/b/a WHEEL BAGELS, and JOSE LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-08652 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 19, 2024) seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with a written wage notice setting forth, among other things, his regular hourly rate of pay, any tip credits taken, and corresponding overtime rate of pay. The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt cook, stock person, customer attendant/server, and cashier at the Bagel Shop from in or about September 2023, through on or about August 28, 2024. The Defendant owns and operates a bagel shop doing business as "Wheel Bagels."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 WOLFSPEED INC: Court Remands Cadriel Wage Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as RICKY CADRIEL, Plaintiff, v. WOLFSPEED, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-05314-EJD (N.D. Calif.). Plaintiff Ricky Cadriel is a California resident who worked for Defendants from approximately August of 2022 to May of 2023. According to him, Defendants failed to follow the California Labor Code, causing both Plaintiff and his fellow California employees to lose wages. As a result, Plaintiff filed this putative class action, seeking to represent a class of "all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants within the State of California at any time commencing four (4) years preceding the filing of Plaintiff's complaint up until the time that notice of the class action is provided to the class." Based on these alleged violations, Plaintiff filed suit in Santa Clara County Superior Court on May 16, 2024, bringing the following ten causes of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2) failure to pay minimum wages; (3) failure to provide mandated meal periods; (4) failure to provide mandated rest periods; (5) failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment; (6) failure to maintain and provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7) failure to timely pay wages; (8) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; (9) failure to pay unused vested vacation days upon resignation; and (10) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. On August 26, 2024, Defendants removed the instant action to this Court, asserting that this Court has jurisdiction under CAFA because "[t]he putative class includes more than 100 class members; minimal diversity exists between the class and Defendants; and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs." Plaintiff filed his motion to remand on September 13, 2024. Defendants filed their opposition on September 27, 2024. Plaintiff does not contend that Defendants fail to satisfy CAFA's minimal diversity and minimum class size requirements. Rather, Plaintiff seeks to remand solely on the ground that Defendants have not sufficiently shown that there is more than $5,000,000 in controversy, as required to establish federal jurisdiction under CAFA. The complaint does not contain an allegation about the amount in controversy. Defendants, meanwhile, allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $6,000,000. Through his motion to remand, Plaintiff challenges Defendants' calculation. Although Plaintiff does not offer his own evidence, he contends that the assumptions Defendants used to calculate their alleged amount in controversy are unreasonable. Therefore, Plaintiff has made a factual attack under Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 700 (9th Cir. 2020), meaning that Defendants have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that their assumptions were reasonable and must produce competent evidence. Defendants supported their amount-in-controversy calculations with declarations from Nora Steinhagen and Emily Griego. Griego, a Senior HR Solutions Specialist at Wolfspeed, created a "Class Data Spreadsheet" detailing employment information for non-exempt employees in California, including start and end dates, hourly wages, and hours worked. Steinhagen, an attorney for Defendants, reviewed this data to derive key figures such as employee numbers, average wages, hours worked, and pay periods. Using this information, Defendants calculated a total amount in controversy of $6,863,567.65 across the claims: Failure to pay overtime wages: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $1,728,137.60 for this claim. Failure to pay minimum wages: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $842,016.00 for this claim. Failure to provide rest periods: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $864,068.80 for this claim. Failure to pay wages due upon termination: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $956,519.52 for this claim. Wage statement violations: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $57,200.00 for this claim. Expense reimbursement violations: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $57,560.00 for this claim. Vacation pay violations: Defendants calculate an amount in controversy of $121,283.40 for this claim. Attorneys' fees: Defendants calculate attorneys' fees at 25% of the damages calculated above, which total $5,490,854.12, resulting in an estimate of $1,372,713.53 in attorneys' fees. Plaintiff argues that Defendants' calculations are flawed because Defendants unreasonably and speculatively assume a 40% violation rate for the overtime, minimum wage, rest period, meal period, and expense reimbursement claims. Plaintiff claims that this is inconsistent with the language of the complaint, which clarifies that violations occurred "at times," and that Defendants did not offer any extrinsic evidence which supports the assumption of such a violation rate. Defendants respond that the 40% violation rates are reasonable since they are consistent with the complaint's allegations that these violations occurred "at times" and with case law addressing similar language. The Court finds that Defendants' calculations are flawed because their assumed violation rates rest on speculation and conjecture. Defendants claim that the 40% violation rates stem from the "at times" language of the complaint, but the Court disagrees. The Court concludes that the complaint's use of "at times" does not, by itself, make it reasonable to assume a 40% violation rate. The Court finds that the Defendants' assumption of a 40% violation rate for the overtime, minimum wage, rest period, meal period, and expense reimbursement claims is unreasonable. The Court now turns to the issue of what violation rate could be reasonably assumed from the complaint's "at times" language. The Court finds it appropriate to exclude the value of overtime, minimum wage, meal period, rest period, and reimbursement claims from the amount in controversy calculation because Defendants provided no evidence of the frequency of violations. Even applying a 20% violation rate—commonly used for alleged occasional violations—and crediting Defendants' calculations for other claims, the total would not exceed the $5,000,000 threshold required under CAFA. With a 20% violation rate, these claims would total $4,141,160.65, including recalculated attorneys' fees, falling short of CAFA's jurisdictional requirement. In sum, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy is over $5,000,000. Accordingly, it grants Plaintiff's motion to remand. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GjQBk WP PROPERTIES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WP PROPERTIES, LLC; and GOLDEN RULE GROCERY, INC. d/b/a GOLDEN RULE SEAFOOD, Case No. 1:24-cv-25043-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination 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 restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial 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. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have 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 business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. WP PROPERTIES, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property.[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 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@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 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com YAZAM INC: Pope Files Suit in D. Columbia ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against YAZAM INC. The case is styled as Michael Pope, Sarah Abel, Jordynn Goins, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. YAZAM INC. d/b/a EMPOWER, Case No. 1:24-cv-03540 (D.D.C., Dec. 19, 2024). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Yazam provides seed-stage funding and business development services to emerging Internet and technology start-ups.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Michael Regan, Esq. REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC 1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350 Washington, DC 200361 Phone: (202) 463-3030 Fax: (202) 463-0667 Email: pregan@reganfirm.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***