/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 6, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 4 Headlines 1126 CENTRAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sotelo Says 3M CO: Plaintiff's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part 86TH CPW: Faces De Los Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ABC CORPORATION: Faces Taveras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ABC LEGAL: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Crowley Says ACERTUS RECOVERY: Faces Goldsmith Class Suit in Cal. Super. ALIZ GROUP: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges ALL STARS PREMIUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Appeals Ruling in H&T Suit to 8th Circuit ALLIANZ LIFE: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Small Suit ALLY WASTE: Faces Sonnik Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. AMAZON.COM INC: Must Respond to Third Amended Action by Jan. 31 AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Seeks to Strike Certain Exhibit AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Filing for Class Cert Due August 20 AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Plaintiff Can File First Amended Complaint ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN: Detainee Class in Medina Gets Certification APEX PIZZA: Hacker Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Wage Suit to Remain in District Court ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Carrasco Removed From State Ct. to E.D.N.Y. ATYG LLC: Hoffman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages AVALARA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Pipe Fitters, et al. Suit BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Trippett Slams Blind-Inaccessible Website BLOOMBERG LP: Ndugga Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal BOTTLES KINDRED: Romero-Acosta Class Action Gets Conditional Status CALIFORNIA: Brian Sues Over Violation of Disabled Person's Rights CAPRI II PIZZA: Herrera and Reyes Sue Over Labor Law Breaches CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over False Statements CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Saylor Suit Over Stock Price Drop CASSAVA SCIENCES: Crocker Sues Over Misleading Company Statements CAVENDISH FARMS: PuertoCuba Sues Over Frozen Potato Price-Fixing CENTER FOR VEIN: Khalil Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach CLEAR CHOICE: Siddiqui Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls CNMI: 9th Circuit Certifies Question in COLA Lawsuit COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Pitre Sues Over Harmful Toothpaste Products COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Court Narrows Claims in U.S. Sugar Suit COOKUNITY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Estrada Says CREATE GOOD: Faces Herrera Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DAVE INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Franklin, et al. Suit DAVE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims DC WHITE PLAINS: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Wages DISCOUNT AUTO: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Pardo Claims DUKE ENERGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Saunders Says EMPIRE SUPER: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ENHANCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Turner Due May 9 ENPHASE ENERGY: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ETL OF NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Claims EXCALIBUR PIZZA: Faces Jordan Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. EXXON MOBIL: Misrepresents Recyclability of Plastics, Suit Says FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Wilson Says FAVE REALTY: Vickers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls FORD MOTOR: Samuels Files Suit Over Vehicle Defect FORME LLC: Chambers Sues Over Deceptive Representations on Fees FULL SAIL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Buxton TCPA Lawsuit GONG CHA TEA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says GOODLEAP LLC: Reynosa Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal GRAMERCY ELECTRIC: Faces Yamba Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Walker Over Blind's Equal Access to Website GSHMAK BAKERY: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Rocano Suit Says HALEON US: Silva Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit HAMILTON COVE: Court Enforces Stand-Alone Class Action Waiver HILCORP ENERGY: Parties Seek More Time to File Discovery Deadlines HOSPITAL SISTERS: Discloses Private Medical Info, Million Says HOT TOPIC: Roberson Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info HOTUSA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges HP HOOD: Rubio Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. HUMANA INC: Rivera Balks at Unsolicited Telephone Calls ICASA COMMERCE: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Strippoli Alleges ICHIRAN USA: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Riley Claims IMMUTABLE PTY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims INSTALLED BUILDING: Mora Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices ITS LOGISTICS: March 10 Settlement Approval Motion Deadline Set JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Tosses Grodnick Coal Tar Shampoo Suit JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Yousefzadeh Appeals False Ad Claim Dismissal JRA MARBLE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Contreras Says JUSTFAB LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code KAISER FOUNDATION: Hearing Aid Exclusion Violates ACA, Suit Says KOBI AUTO: Faces Mazariegos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Court Tosses Simijanovic MCPA Lawsuit LAKE CITY: Court Okays Class Action Settlement in McAllister Suit LAMB WESTON: Conspires to Fix Frozen Potato Prices, Shegian Says LAVENDER LINGERIE: Faces Agostini Suit Over Inaccessible Website LEGION SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Macdonald Says LOWE'S HOME: Raygoza Sues Over Misleading Sale Promotions LUXE BUILDER: Faces Hatfield Suit Over Latent Building Defects LUXE EVENT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Vohidjonov Suit Says M.I. INDUSTRIES: Schroeder Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info MARK CUBAN: Karnas Allowed to File Unredacted Reply Under Seal MARQUE OF BRANDS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MDL 2566: Plaintiff Seeks More Time to File Reply on Denial Bid MDL 3108: Sifeuntes Suit Consolidated in Customer Data Breach Row MDL 3116: Relief/Reconsideration Move of Inmate Woes Suits Denied MDL No. 3114: AT&T Data Privacy Suits Transferred to N.D. Tex. MOM ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says MOMIN & MOMIN: Faces Guchait Class Action Lawsuit in D. Texas MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Crackers MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Objectors Can't Challenge Attorney Fees MOUNT SINAI: Confidentiality Order Entered in Cooper, et al. Suit MYLAN NV: Loses Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings in KPH Suit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Cheatham Appeals Final OK of Gibson Suit Deal NEW YORK, NY: Court Okays Settlement in Wynne FLSA Lawsuit NEW YORK, NY: St. Kitt Sues Over Disability Discrimination NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Class Action Over False Financial Prospects NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Weber Suit Over Drop of Common Stock's Price NISSAN NORTH: Parties Must File Status Update by Feb. 13 OCEANBLUE OMEGA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says OPW FUELING: Class Certification Filing Extension Sought ORACLE AMERICA: Atty's. Fees Order in Katz-Lacabe Suit Appealed OVERHERE LIMITED: Mena Slams Sale of Unregistered Memecoin PACIFIC MARKET: Refuses to Refund Recalled Mugs, Scherzi Suit Says PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Content Creators Sue Over Affiliate Commissions PAYPAL INC: Wendover Sues Over Redirection of Content Creators' Pay PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 19, 2025 PINNACLE PROPANE: Class Action Settlement in Fitton Gets Final Nod PLEX INC: Refuses to Pay Arbitration Filing Fees, Tsuya Says POLYGLASS USA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid PURISM SPC: Fails to Comply With Refund Obligations, Thier Says PYTHON LEADS: Plaintiff Must Face Counterclaims in TCPA Suit QG LANDSCAPE: Romero Sues Over Discrimination, Unpaid Wages RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Mislabels Granola Bars, Gamino Suit Says SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL: Discloses Private Medical Info, Voss Says SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL: Faces Rusow Suit Over Medical Info Disclosure SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Certeza Seeks More Time to File Response SPIFFY FRANCHISING: Siert, et Case Stayed Pending Arbitration SUMMERFORD HEALTH: Gay Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices SUNPATH LTD: Morales Suit Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses SUSHI NAKAZAWA: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind TD AMERITRADE: Faces Masud Class Suit Over Sweep Program TECH MAHINDRA: Judgment in Williams Discrimination Suit Vacated TR WINE: Liz Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit TWO FARMS: Denial of Class Certification in Sniadach Suit Upheld UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks Modification of March 11, 2021 Order UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Exhibits UNITED HEALTHCARE: Filing for Initial OK of Settlement Due Jan. 31 UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Faces Levario Class Suit in Cal. Super. VA CLAIMS: Court Narrows Claims in Warriors and Family, et al. Suit VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Amir Ahmadi Appointed Lead Plaintiff WAL-MART STORES: Court Tosses Zanetich CREAMMA Lawsuit WE ARE THE CHOMPIANS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says WEBMD LLC: Bid to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report Granted in Part WELLFULL INC: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WESTERN FIRST: Brown Wage Lawsuit to Remain in District Court WESTMAN ATELIER: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Maneman Sues Over ERISA Violations WHOOP INC: Sanderson Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Materials WILMINGTON, DE: Faces Akil Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT WPP GROUP: Polanco Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks Leave to Amend Bid for Class Certification YARDI SYSTEMS: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12 ********* 1126 CENTRAL RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Sotelo Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Jaime Sotelo and Pedro Manuel Juarez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1126 Central Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Napolita Pizza and Wine Bar, Lukasz Cholodecki, Josh Schonfeld, and Does 1-3, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12816 (N.D. Ill., December 13, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for Defendants' failure to pay all overtime wages due for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff Sotelo worked at Napolita from approximately March 16, 2022 through August 14, 2024, when he was terminated. He worked there approximately 6 years as a kitchen helper and cook. During his employment, he routinely worked more than 40 hours per week and was paid straight time for all hours worked with no overtime premium, says the Plaintiff. The complaint is also brought under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act for failure to pay all wages when due. 1126 Central Restaurant, LLC owns and operates a restaurant called Napolita Pizza and Wine Bar in Wilmette, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jorge Sanchez, Esq. LOPEZ & SANCHEZ LLP 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1313 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 420-6784 E-mail: jsanchez@lopezsanchezlaw.com 3M CO: Plaintiff's Bid to Amend Complaint Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to amend complaint in the case captioned as BRENDA BUTLER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01587 (S.D. Ohio). This case is one of many product liability actions consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings as part of a multidistrict litigation against 3M and its wholly owned subsidiary, Arizant Healthcare. The MDL plaintiffs generally assert that they underwent orthopedic implant surgeries and thereafter contracted joint infections; they allege the infections were caused by the use of the "Bair Hugger" system -- a convective (or "forced-air") patient-warming device manufactured and sold by 3M -- during their surgeries. Ms. Butler's case was selected as an MDL bellwether action. In April 2024, the MDL court transferred 28 bellwether cases, including Ms. Butler's action, to the district courts where they would have been filed absent the direct filing order previously issued by the MDL court. Accordingly, Ms. Butler's case was transferred to the District Court. On June 7, 2024, Ms. Butler filed the instant Motion seeking to amend her Complaint. She represents that her proposed Amended Complaint "maintains the same causes of action against the same Defendants from the original complaint" and serves to "conform" the "purely administrative" Short Form Complaint to her own individualized circumstances. Defendants oppose Ms. Butler's request, which they characterize as part of a "broader strategy to use the transferred bellwether cases to reopen and relitigate general discovery outside of the MDL court. They contend that Ms. Butler should have more timely sought leave to amend and that her proposed amendments are futile. The District Court notes if a party moves to amend after the deadline established in a scheduling order, she "must meet the higher threshold for modifying a scheduling order found in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)." The party must "show good cause under Rule 16(b) for the failure to seek leave to amend prior to the expiration of the deadline before the court will consider whether the amendment is proper under Rule 15(a)." There is no dispute that Ms. Butler moved to amend her Complaint before the deadline established by the District Court. In May 2024 -- a month after the case was transferred to this Court -- Ms. Butler indicated her intent to amend her Complaint. She filed her motion to amend in June 2024. Although the District Court agrees with Defendants that Ms. Butler was not perfectly diligent in that she could have moved to amend earlier, she was sufficiently diligent to satisfy Rule 16(b). Defendants contend that granting Ms. Butler leave to amend "would unduly prejudice 3M should it provide a basis for reopening general discovery outside of the MDL." They argue that "her amendment will undo significant work done in the MDL court by broadening the scope of discovery in the District Court to include more than just case-specific fact and expert discovery." According to the District Court, a review of the proposed Amended Complaint shows that the claims therein are the same as those initially asserted in Ms. Butler's Short Form Complaint; the only addition is a Count XI, a claim for misrepresentation in violation of the Ohio Product Liability Act. Thus, amendment will not require Defendants to develop a new litigation strategy. Moreover, Defendants were aware of the potential for amendment by virtue of the MDL court's explicit authorization of the practice for future plaintiffs. Turning to Rule 15(a), Ms. Butler has partially satisfied this standard. The District Court finds no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motive on her part. Any prejudice to 3M and Arizant Healthcare would not be undue. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iZqxgn 86TH CPW: Faces De Los Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ DELFINO DE LOS SANTOS, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff 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 Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09736 (S.D.N.Y., December 18, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that he and others similarly situated are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime wages due to fixed salary compensation; (3) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to timeshaving; (4) unpaid wages, including overtime, due to improper rounding; (5) unpaid spread of hours; (6) statutory penalties; (7) liquidated damages; and (8) attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was hired to work as a Counter Associate for Defendants' liquor store located in 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. Individual Defendant HOWARD SHIM was a founder and original owner of a wine and liquor store, which he opened sometime around 1992 to 1993. Individual Defendant HOWARD SHIM operated the store through Corporate Defendant 536 J AND J CORPORATION (together, the "Predecessor Defendants"). In or around August 2023, Predecessor Defendants sold the business to Individual Defendant BRIAN PARK, who began, and currently is, operating the business through Corporate Defendant 86TH CPW INC (together, the "Successor Defendants").[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 CORPORATION: Faces Taveras Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR TAVERAS and CESAR GUZMAN GIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. "ABC CORPORATION" d/b/a VIVA FRUITS & VEGETABLES, name of the corporation being fictitious and unknown to Plaintiffs, and JOSE DELACRUZ and SOBEIDA DELACRUZ, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09479 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, failure to furnish with a written wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements upon each payment of wages. Plaintiff Taveras was employed by the Defendants as a loader, organizer, delivery person, stocker, and cleaner, while performing other miscellaneous duties from October 2014 until May 2024. Plaintiff Gil was also employed by the Defendants as a helper, delivery person, stocker and truck maintenance worker, while performing other miscellaneous duties from April 2020 until April 2024. ABC Corporation, d/b/a VIVA FRUITS & VEGETABLES, is a corporation organized under the laws of New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 ABC LEGAL: Fails to Protect Employees' Personal Info, Crowley Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANTHONY CROWLEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-2092 (W.D. Wash., December 18, 2024) arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and other current and former employees stored on their computer network in a data breach perpetrated by cybercriminals. According to the complaint, the Data Breach occurred on August 7, 2024. Following an internal investigation, the Defendant learned cybercriminals had gained unauthorized access to employees' personally identifiable information, including but not limited to Plaintiff's email address and Social Security Number. In failing to adequately protect its employees' information, adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature of the breach, the Defendant violated state law and harmed thousands of current and former employees, the complaint asserts. As a direct and traceable result of Defendant's negligence and/or negligent supervision, Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered or will suffer damages, including monetary damages, increased risk of future harm, embarrassment, humiliation, frustration, and emotional distress, says the suit. ABC Legal Services LLC is a legal solution provider with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.[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 ACERTUS RECOVERY: Faces Goldsmith Class Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACERTUS RECOVERY, INC, et al. The case is captioned as Ayanna Goldsmith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACERTUS RECOVERY, INC, et al., Case No. 24CV021329 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the of the employment related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lauri A. Damrell. Acertus is a tech-enabled automotive logistics company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON LAW GROUP, PC 725 S. Figueroa Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Telephone: (213) 232-3128 Facsimile: (213) 232-3125 E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com ALIZ GROUP: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALIZ GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09921 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website, https://www.alizhotel.com, and/or mobile application platforms to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. On May 8 and 15, 2024, the Plaintiff visited and attempted to access Defendant's Website using screen-reading software in order to book reservations at the Aliz Hotel Times Square. Regrettably, he was unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues. Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's goods and services, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers. Aliz Group is a privately owned and operated property management, acquisition and development company. It owns and administers its website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com ALL STARS PREMIUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. All Stars Premium Sportswear, LLC d/b/a All Star Elite, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-04540-PJS-SGE (D. Minn., December 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. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the suit. 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. All Stars Premium Sportswear, LLC operates the website that 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 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 ALLIANCE PIPELINE: Appeals Ruling in H&T Suit to 8th Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------ ALLIANCE PIPELINE LP is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled H & T Fair Hills, Ltd., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alliance Pipeline LP, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01095-JNE, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, agricultural landowners brought this case against Alliance Pipeline for its alleged failure to compensate them for crop losses caused by a pipeline it built through their properties. Prior to construction, the Defendant agreed to compensate these farmers for pipeline-related crop losses. The Defendant met this obligation by creating a crop loss program that compensated landowners and tenants for lower crop yields on the pipeline right of way. In 2015, the Defendant ended this program and, in 2019, the Plaintiffs sued. On Nov. 7, 2023, Judge Joan N. Ericksen entered an Order lifting stay. The claims of class members subject to arbitration agreements were dismissed without prejudice. On June 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Ericksen granted on Nov. 22, 2024. Judge Ericksen held that insofar as the Court dismissed the claims of class members subject to arbitration agreements, the Order on Nov. 7, 2023, is vacated. The claims of class members subject to arbitration agreements are stayed. The appellate case is captioned H & T Fair Hills, Ltd., et al. v. Alliance Pipeline LP, Case No. 24-3563, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before January 28, 2025; -- Appendix is due on February 7, 2025; -- Appellant's brief is due on February 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees H & T FAIR HILLS, LTD., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. Brian William Nelson, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON 8050 W. 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 - and - Steve McCann, Esq. BALL & MCCANN 161 N. Clark Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (872) 205-6556 Defendant-Appellant ALLIANCE PIPELINE LP is represented by: Samuel Andre, Esq. Aron J. Frakes, Esq. Patrick D.J. Mahlberg, Esq. Nicole M. Moen, Esq. Haley Waller Pitts, Esq. FREDRIKSON & BYRON 60 S. Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 492-7000 ALLIANZ LIFE: 9th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Small Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as LAWANDA D. SMALL, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class; Class Representative, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, No. 23-55821 (9th Cir.), Judges Richard C. Tallman, Ryan D. Nelson, and Daniel A. Bress of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California certifying a class challenging loss of life insurance for failure to pay premiums where insurer Allianz Life Insurance failed to strictly comply with statutorily mandated notice provisions. Lawanda Small, a beneficiary and an additional insured of her deceased husband's Allianz life insurance policy, purported to represent two subclasses: (1) the "Living Insured Subclass" seeking equitable relief to reinstate life insurance coverage; and (2) the "Beneficiary Subclass" seeking damages from death benefits where the insured was now deceased. She alleged that Allianz violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72, which require that insurers abide by a series of notice procedures to prevent policies from inadvertently lapsing due to an insured's nonpayment of premiums. The panel first addressed what a plaintiff must show to recover for alleged violations of the Statutes under California law, and held that the California Supreme Court would adopt a "causation" theory—a plaintiff must show an insurer's violation and that the violation caused plaintiff harm. Applying the causation theory, the panel held that the district court erred in certifying Small's subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Under Rule 23(a), Small was not an adequate representative with typical questions to represent both subclasses. In addition, neither subclass satisfied Rule 23(b). With respect to the beneficiary subclass, the predominance requirement was not satisfied. The living insured subclass did not meet the standard for class-wide equitable relief, the panel found. The Circuit Judges conclude that the district court erred in granting class certification because Small has not shown that either Subclass meets the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). Because they vacate the summary judgment orders, whether the district court violated the one-way intervention prohibition is moot. The district court's order certifying the class is reversed. The orders on summary judgment are vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8VYvTw ALLY WASTE: Faces Sonnik Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALLY WASTE SERVICES CA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. The case is captioned as DZHONI SONNIK, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ALLY WASTE SERVICES CA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 24CV021344 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the employment related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jill H. Talley. Ally Waste offers valet trash services for apartments, senior living facilities, and residential living.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Yang, Esq. SENTINEL FIRM, APC Website: www.thesentinelfirm.com 355 S Grand Ave, Ste 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Telephone: (213) 985-1150 E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Must Respond to Third Amended Action by Jan. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER, CHRISTOPHER CAIN, JOSE GRINAN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, SHARON PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Barbara Rothstein entered an order granting the stipulated motion to extend case deadlines as follows: 1. The Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' third amended class action complaint by Jan. 31, 2025. 2. The Joinder of Parties deadline is continued from Jan. 31, 2025, to Feb. 14, 2025. 3. The deadline for amended pleadings is continued from Feb. 7, 2025, to Feb. 21, 2025. 4. The Class Certification discovery cutoff is continued from Feb. 14, 2025, to March 14, 2025. The remainder of the Court's scheduling order remains in effect except as modified herein. 5. Stipulated Motion, ECF No. 102, is struck as moot. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sLOSv9 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Toby J. Marshall, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com - and - Hillary Schwab, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607-3260 Facsimile: (617) 488-2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com pbotros@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew DeCarlow, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-6400 E-mail: andrew.decarlow@morganlewis.com - and - Walter F. Brown, Esq. Shawn M. Estrada, Esq. Marco A. Torres, Esq. Amy L. Barton, Esq. Matthew P. Merlo, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 535 Mission Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (628) 432-5100 Facsimile: (628) 232-3101 E-mail: wbrown@paulweiss.com sestrada@paulweiss.com mtorres@paulweiss.com abarton@paulweiss.com mmerlo@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Connelly Seeks to Strike Certain Exhibit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENEE CONNELLY, on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, V. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02768-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion to strike Exhibit I to Amazon's response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. On Dec. 2, 2024, Amazon filed its response to Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Along with its response brief, Amazon submitted a report from its expert, Peter Nickerson, as Exhibit I. However, the information contained in Exhibit I was not disclosed by the deadline set by the Court. Further, Exhibit I relies upon information that was never produced to Plaintiff in discovery. The law is clear that an expert witness may not offer new opinions that were not previously disclosed. Moreover, an expert witness cannot rely upon information that was not produced in discovery. Given that Exhibit I violates both rules pertaining to expert opinions, Exhibit I must be stricken. Accordingly, the Court should grant Plaintiff's motion to strike Exhibit I. Amazon.com Services provides e-commerce services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5kni8v at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, LLP 2 Greenway Plaza, Ste. 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com - and - Matthew Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 999-5229 E-mail: matt@parmet.law AMENTUM GOVERNMENT: Filing for Class Cert Due August 20 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY MIDDLETON and GEORGE A. LAWRENCE, individually and on behalf of the AMENTUM 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN and DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL SAVINGS PLAN, and all others similarly situated, v. AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES PARENT HOLDINGS LLC, AMENTUM BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE, AMENTUM RETIREMENT & INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, TAMMY WOODMAN, GREG ROBINSON, BOB RUDISIN, DEBBIE BECHTEL, ANGIE MYERS, ALICE MCABEE, MATT STONE, JAKE KENNEDY, LARRY GOLDMAN, ANN MCRITCHIE, DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, THE RETIREMENT AND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, BARBARA WALKER, and JOHN AND JANE DOE DEFENDANTS 1-30, Case No. 2:23-cv-02456-EFM-BGS (D. Kan.), Hon. Judge Brooks Severson entered the scheduling order to govern the class certification stage of the case, summarized in the following table: Event Deadline/Setting Rule 26 document exchange: Jan. 6, 2025 Plaintiffs' settlement proposal: Jan. 9, 2025 Defendants' settlement counter-proposal: Feb. 3, 2025 Jointly filed mediation notice, or Mar. 3, 2025 confidential settlement reports to magistrate judge: Motions to amend: Mar. 14, 2025 Motion for class certification (if Aug. 20, 2025 opposed) or for the parties to stipulate to class certification: Class Certification Experts: May 2, 2025 Class Certification Rebuttal experts June 13, 2025 Disclosed: Deadline to complete class July 21, 2025 certification discovery: The Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of themselves, the Plans, and a putative class of participants in the Plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against the Plans' fiduciaries. Amentum provides global technical and engineering services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bj2lZV at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Plaintiff Can File First Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-03129-WBS-SCR (E.D. Calif.), Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filing date will relate back and is deemed filed by the Court on the date that the Parties file this executed stipulation, i.e., on December 9, 2024. The FAC and all allegations and causes of action pleaded therein shall be deemed denied by Defendant AMERICOLD LOGISTICS, LLC. Defendant shall not be required to file an Answer or any other responsive pleading to the FAC as Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint, filed on November 6, 2024 , shall be deemed to apply to the FAC as if fully set forth therein A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CpMDVH Attorneys for Plaintiff Rafael Rodriguez: David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. David Arakelyan, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 880 E Broadway Glendale, CA 91205 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law d.arakelyan@d.law ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN: Detainee Class in Medina Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA, JUSTIN HORTON, MADLAINE THOMPSON, LUKE MELVIN LEWIS, MARCOS HERNANDEZ, DENISE ANN BEIERLE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. THE HON. ANN MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, THE HON. JEREMIAH HUMES, THE HON. CHRISTINE JOHNSON, THE HON. THOMAS LOW, AND THE HON. MATTHEW BELL in their official capacities, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David Nuffer entered an order certifying the following class with Plaintiffs as class representatives and Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel: "Persons detained in the county jails of Beaver, Carbon, Iron, and Utah from the date of the filing of the Complaint to the resolution of this case; who were assigned secured financial conditions of release; which secured financial conditions of release were assigned without presentation of information of the person's ability to pay; and the persons remained in custody of the county jail and were found indigent." With the class certification issue now resolved, it is now possible for Defendants to test whether class members' claims are viable for adjudication. Though every member of the class as proposed has widely varying circumstances, the claims that form the basis for the Plaintiffs' complaint are consistent across class members, which is that there is an absence of constitutionally required procedures in bail hearings which results in unnecessarily prolonged detentions for the indigent. The Plaintiffs' requested declaratory relief is also identical for themselves and for class members and would apply universally to those challenging the allegedly unconstitutional practices. The fluidity of the class composition likewise does not pose an obstacle to certification in a Rule 32(b)(2) class action claim. Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied. Counsel for the Plaintiffs have shown a high degree of commitment towards the Plaintiffs and furthering their legal interests, and further have shown themselves both experienced and greatly competent with respect to class action claims. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cthrf4 at no extra charge.[CC] APEX PIZZA: Hacker Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------- GINA HACKER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. APEX PIZZA HOLDINGS LLC, HPG PIZZA I, LLC, HPG PIZZA II, LLC, DCT ENTERPRISES OF COLORADO, LLC, ROB PRANGE, and JIM PARRISH, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03447-STV (D. Colo., December 12, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers were subjected to Defendants' reimbursement policy and methodology that fail to reflect the realities of delivery drivers' automobile expenses. Moreover, the Defendants' reimbursement formula has resulted in an unreasonable underestimation of delivery drivers' automobile expenses throughout the recovery period, causing systematic minimum wage violations, says the Plaintiff. Apex Pizza Holdings, LLC operates several Papa John's franchise stores in Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC 400 North Saint Paul Street, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com APL LOGISTICS: Padilla Wage Suit to Remain in District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as ANTHONY PADILLA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APL LOGISTICS AMERICAS LTD., a California corporation; APL LOGISTICS WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., a Florida corporation; CARMICHAEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, a California corporation; APL LOGISTICS GROUP, an unknown business entity; APL LOGISTICS LTD., an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02318 WBS SCR (E.D. Calif.). Plaintiff Anthony Padilla filed this putative wage-and-hour class action in San Joaquin County Superior Court against defendants APL Logistics Americas Ltd., APL Logistics Warehouse Management Services Inc., Carmichael International Service, APL Logistics Group, and APL Logistics Ltd. Defendants removed the action to the District Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Plaintiff now moves to remand. Under CAFA, the federal courts have original jurisdiction over class actions in which the parties are minimally diverse, the proposed class has at least 100 members, and the aggregated amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Plaintiff argues that wile the Complaint does not necessarily signal an amount in controversy or the number of putative class members, this information was easily accessible and in Defendant's exclusive possession, custody, and control as the employer, and therefore Defendant could have exercised reasonable diligence to determine its removability. This argument lacks merit, according to the District Court. The District Court says while a defendant must apply a reasonable amount of intelligence in ascertaining removability, for instance by conducting calculations based on the figures provided in the complaint, the defendant is "not obligated to supply information" omitted by plaintiff's pleadings in order to determine removability. As plaintiff apparently concedes, the complaint did not "affirmatively reveal on its face the facts necessary for federal court jurisdiction." The complaint states that "the class is estimated to be greater than fifty (50) individuals and the identity of such membership is readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendants' employment records." This allegation falls short of the 100 class members required by CAFA, the District Court notes. The complaint provides no figures that would enable the calculation of an amount-in-controversy greater than $5 million. The first removal window under Sec. 1446(b)(1) therefore was not triggered. And plaintiff does not argue, nor is there anything in the record to indicate, that plaintiff served some other pleading that could trigger the second removal window under Sec. 1446(b)(3). Defendants removed approximately four months following the filing of the complaint on the basis of their own information, which is permissible because neither 30-day period was triggered. Accordingly, the action was not improperly removed, the District Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VOR7i8 ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Carrasco Removed From State Ct. to E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON CARRASCO and LAURIE LEBRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC, Case No. 715500/2024 (Filed July 26, 2024), was remvoed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Dec. 2, 2024. The Eastern New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-08786 to the proceeding. The suit alleges violation of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of: "all persons in New York who purchased Defendant's product, Arnold Palmer Lite Half Iced Tea & Half Lemonade, in 20- ounce bottles, during the statute of limitations for each cause of action alleged." Plaintiff Carrasco is a citizen of Queens County, New York. Arizona Beverages is a producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks based in Woodbury, New York.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicholas P. Eliades, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive, Suite 201 Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: (201) 857-6764 E-mail: Nicholas.eliades@stevenslee.com ATYG LLC: Hoffman Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------- MARK HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATYG LLC D/B/A STEADY CAPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01514-AMN-CFH (N.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) alleges that the Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending telemarketing text messages and calls to Plaintiff and other putative class members listed on the National Do Not Call Registry without their written consent. The text messages were all sent to promote the Defendant's loan services, which were being offered to the Plaintiff for sale. However, these text messages and calls were unwanted and Plaintiff has never been a customer of the Defendant. In addition, some of the text messages included no sender information at all, thus violating the TCPA's prohibition against sending unidentified calls which do not name a specific sender and the TCPA's identification requirements, says the suit. Headquartered in Albany, NY, ATYG LLC d/b/a Steady Capital offers loan services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com AVALARA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Pipe Fitters, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as PIPE FITTERS LOCAL UNION 120 PENSION PLAN and SUZANNE FLANNERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. SCOTT MCFARLANE, ROSS TENNENBAUM, MARCELA MARTIN, REJEEV SINGH, BRUCE CRAWFORD, MARION FOOTE, EDWARD GILHULY, WILLIAM INGRAM, TAMI RELLER, BRIAN SHARPLES, SRINIVAS TALLAPRAGADA, and KATHLEEN ZWICKERT, Petitioners, No. 85541-7-I (Wash. App. Ct.), Judges David S. Mann, Ian S. Birk and Stephen J. Dwyer of the Court of Appeals of the State of Washington accepted discretionary review, answered the certified question, and affirmed the trial court's decision denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. This dispute arises out of a merger between Avalara, Inc., a Seattle based tax software company, and Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC. On January 24, 2023, Pipe Fitters filed a class action against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty. Pipe Fitters sought damages, quasi-appraisal, rescissory damages, attorney fees and costs, and any further relief deemed just and proper by the trial court. Pipe Fitters' complaint alleged: (1) a flawed sale process, during which conflicted directors engaged in self-dealing conduct, that (2) resulted in undervaluation of stock, (3) the proxy was materially misleading to shareholders, and (4) the board deterred competing bids with highly restrictive deal protections. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CR 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The defendants argued that under the WBCA and Sound Infiniti, Inc. v. Snyder, 169 Wn.2d 199, 237 P.3d 241 (2010), the statutory appraisal process was the only remedy available to Pipe Fitters absent a showing of fraud or a pleading that the merger failed to comply with procedure. The defendants argued that because the shareholders failed to plead fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, the complaint should be dismissed. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The trial court then granted the defendants' motion and certified for discretionary review under CR 54(b). The Appellate Court accepted discretionary review. The trial court then granted the defendants' motion to certify the following question for the Appellate Court's review: Are minority shareholders who dissent to a corporate merger limited to the appraisal process set forth in RCW 23B.13.020 as the exclusive remedy for a claim for money damages, or are they entitled, in cases of fraud, to file suit? The Judges say, "Consequently, we answer the certified question as follows: consistent with the plain language of RCW 23B.13.020(2), and Sound Infiniti, a shareholder entitled to dissent and obtain payment for shares under the WBCA may challenge the corporate actions outside the statutory appraisal process based on a showing that the action was fraudulent with respect to the shareholder or the corporation. We affirm." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8lpAtT BENJAMIN RESTAURANT: Trippett Slams Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Benjamin Restaurant Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09495 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.benjaminsteakhouse.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On December 2, 2024, while browsing Google for steakhouses in NYC, the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's website. He intended to explore their steak offerings and was interested in the option to purchase meat and sauce package for home cooking. When he intended to purchase Benjamin at Home Package for a family gathering, he encountered significant accessibility issues, that made his navigation inefficient, including the absence of a 'Skip to content' link, and many poorly labeled buttons. He attempted to learn more about the company's products and services but was unable to do so independently because of the numerous access barriers on the Defendant's website. These barriers have made Benjaminsteakhouse.com inaccessible and unusable by blind and visually impaired individuals, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Benjamin Restaurant Group's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Benjamin Restaurant Group, LLC provides to the public a website known as Benjaminsteakhouse.com which offers steaks and American steakhouse cuisine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com BLOOMBERG LP: Ndugga Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NAULA NDUGGA, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND SIMILARLY SITUATED WOMEN, v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Case No. 1:20-cv-07464-GHW-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for leave to file class certification under seal. Bloomberg is an American privately held financial, software, data, and media company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xLLkxJ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine E. Webber, Esq. Rebecca A. Ojserkis, Esq. Dana Busgang, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: cwebber@cohenmilstein.com rojserkis@cohenmilstein.com dbusgang@cohenmilstein.com - and - Donna H. Clancy, Esq. THE CLANCY LAW FIRM, P.C. 40 Wall Street, 61st Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 747-1744 Facsimile: (646) 693-7229 E-mail: dhc@dhclancylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Elise M. Bloom, Esq. Rachel S. Philion, Esq. Allison L. Martin, Esq. Mark W. Batten, Esq. PINCHOS GOLDBERG Eleven Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com rphilion@proskauer.com amartin@proskauer.com pgoldberg@proskauer.com mbatten@proskauer.com BOTTLES KINDRED: Romero-Acosta Class Action Gets Conditional Status ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR E. ROMERO-ACOSTA, v. BOTTLES, KINDRED SPIRITS INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01163-JAG-BJM (D.P.R.), Hon. Judge Jay Garcia-Gregory entered an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file amended complaint, -- granting Plaintiffs' conditional certification of class action, and -- denying Defendants' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. The Court sets the following deadlines: -- Service of Process on co-Defendant Jan. 31, 2025 Gonsalves due by: -- Answers to Amended Complaint due by: Feb. 14, 2025 -- Defendants' production of list of Jan. 15, 2025 current and former waiters due by: -- Notice to potential plaintiffs due by: Jan. 31, 2025 Considering that the proposed Amended Complaint includes new plaintiffs and that Gonsalves likely had knowledge of the claims against him, the Court will not dismiss the claims against him at this time in the interest of judicial economy. Failure to comply may result in dismissal without prejudice. Defendants' first objection is rejected because the Court has granted leave to file the Amended Complaint. The second objection also fails because the Court already found that the applicable statute of limitations is five years pursuant to the Puerto Rico Minimum Wage Act. As such, Plaintiffs may request discovery of evidence within the applicable five-year limitations period. Here, Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that the potential class members—runners and servers that were paid, in whole or in part, through "commissions" derived from "service charges"—have the same or similar job description and are subject to the same compensation structure. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XWMISF at no extra charge.[CC] CALIFORNIA: Brian Sues Over Violation of Disabled Person's Rights ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAMS BRIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN DOE (1) of THREE (3); JOHN DOE (2) of THREE (3); JOHN DOE (3) of THREE (3); JOHN DOES and JANE DOES; JOHN DOES(S) and JANE DOE(S), individually; and DOES 1 through 200, Defendants, Case No. CV24-11181-FMO (C.D. Cal., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the American with Disabilities Act and rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. According to the complaint, the Defendants have intentionally committed a crime upon the Plaintiff, to physically subject him to cruel and unusual punishment to deprive him of his Constitutional Rights of Equal Protection of the Laws and subject him to unlawful emotional acts and had made a conscious and willful decision to engage in such conduct. The Defendants conspired to rob, assault and beat the Plaintiff whom the State of California Doctors for the State Compensation Board have classified as having a disability under the American with Disability Act since his on-the job injury over 10 years ago. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, suit says. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. CAPRI II PIZZA: Herrera and Reyes Sue Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------------- RAUL HERRERA, and FRANCISCO REYES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPRI II PIZZA, INC., GIULIO DIVITO, and CHRISTOPHER DIVITO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09483 (S.D.N.Y. December 12, 2024), seeks equitable and legal relief for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed Plaintiff Herrera as a cook and a cashier, from in or around December 1996 until July 2022. The Defendants also employed Plaintiff Reyes as a cook from in or around July 2013 to the present day and is still currently employed by the Defendants. Allegedly, the Defendants never tracked the hours they worked. Despite routinely working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular hourly rate or the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater, for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. In addition, the Plaintiffs were not given any proper meal or rest breaks during work shifts, says the suit. Capri II Pizza, Inc. owns and operates a pizzeria that also serves Italian cuisine in Bronx, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY Telephone: (718) 669-0714 E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Class Action Over False Statements ------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Caribou Biosciences, Inc. ("Caribou" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: CRBU) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Caribou securities between July 14, 2023 and July 16, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/CRBU. Case Details The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) they had overstated CB-010's safety, efficacy, and durability relative to approved autologous CAR-T cell therapies in treating patients with r/r B-NHL and/or LBCL, as well as CB-010's overall clinical results and commercial prospects; (2) Caribou was at significant risk of having insufficient cash, liquidity, and/or other capital to fund its current business operations, including preclinical research activities associated with the allogeneic CAR-NK platform; (3) all the foregoing was likely to have a significant negative impact on Caribou's business and operations; and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/CRBU or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Caribou you have until February 24, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller (332) 239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN] CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Saylor Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ JACOB SAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES, INC., RACHEL E. HAURWITZ, and JASON V. O'BYRNE, Case No. 4:24-cv-09413 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 24, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Caribou securities between July 14, 2023 and July 16, 2024, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) they had overstated CB-010's safety, efficacy, and durability relative to approved autologous CAR-T cell therapies in treating patients with r/r B-NHL and/or LBCL, as well as CB-010's overall clinical results and commercial prospects; and (ii) Caribou was at significant risk of having insufficient cash, liquidity, and/or other capital to fund its current business operations, including preclinical research activities associated with the allogeneic CAR-NK platform, says the suit. On June 2, 2024, Caribou issued a press release announcing that it had "presented updated clinical data from the ongoing ANTLER Phase 1 trial that [purportedly] indicates a single dose of CB-010 . . . has the potential to rival the safety, efficacy, and durability of approved autologous CAR-T cell therapies." Then, on July 16, 2024, Caribou disclosed in an SEC filing that it had "discontinued preclinical research activities associated with its allogeneic CAR-NK platform and reduced its workforce by 21 positions, or approximately 12%," explaining that "[t]he Company is undertaking this reduction to extend its cash runway." On this news, Caribou's stock price fell $0.09 per share, or 3.3%, to close at $2.64 per share on July 17, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the Plaintiff avers. Caribou is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop genome-edited allogeneic cell therapies for the treatment of hematologic malignancies in the U.S. and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com CASSAVA SCIENCES: Crocker Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ----------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN CROCKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC., RICHARD JON BARRY, and JAMES W. KUPIEC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01525 (W.D. Tex., December 12, 2024) seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff Crocker brings this federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Cassava securities between February 7, 2024 and November 24, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Cassava's leading drug candidate, simufilam. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, clear confidence in simufilam's ability to treat Alzheimer's Disease through the promotion of statistically insignificant phase 2 results, patient elected enrollment in the open-label expansion studies, and the presentation of detailed plans for the future of the company upon the conclusion of successful Phase 3 studies showing the effectiveness of simufilam, coupled with the absence of any detailed plan for the alternative scenario arising out of the drug's failure, says the suit. Headquartered in Austin, TX, Cassava Sciences, Inc. is a clinical stage biotechnology company that focuses on the development of drugs for neurodegenerative diseases. Its common stock traded on the NASDAQ Stock under the symbol "SAVA." [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thane Tyler Sponsel III, Esq. 50 Briar Hollow Lane, Suite 370 W Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 892-5400 Facsimile: (713) 892-5401 E-mail: sponsel@smglawgroup.com - and - Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com CAVENDISH FARMS: PuertoCuba Sues Over Frozen Potato Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- PUERTOCUBA LLC, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVENDISH FARMS, LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS; INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LTD.; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; NATIONAL POTATO PROMOTION BOARD d/b/a POTATOES USA; and CIRCANA, LLC. Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-13048 (N.D. Ill., December 19, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated commercial and institutional indirect purchasers of Frozen Potato Products, arising from the Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and common law. By the start of 2021, the Defendants colluded to fix the prices of their FPPs above competitive levels. The Defendants affected this price-fixing conspiracy via implementation of lockstep price increases that permitted them to obtain unprecedented margins. One manner through which Defendants implemented their conspiracy is through potato price data aggregation services by Defendant Circana LLC and their market data aggregator "Potato Trac," and collectively through trade associations such as Potatoes USA. These vehicles granted Defendants access to each other's data and a direct line of communication with each other, allowing Potatoes USA and its members to maintain supracompetitive prices, drive out discounters, and inflict other harms, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks actual and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper. Cavendish Farms, Ltd. processes and supplies frozen potato products with its principal place of business located in New Brunswick.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com CENTER FOR VEIN: Khalil Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- AIDA KHALIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CENTER FOR VEIN RESTORATION (MD), LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03593 (D. Md., December 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including protected health information and other personally identifiable information. On its website, the Defendant announced that an unauthorized party accessed its system on October 6, 2024. However, the Defendant failed to timely and adequately notify Class Members about the data breach's occurrence and scope. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Glenn Dale, MD, Center for Vein Restoration is a health care provider that operates 16 clinics in Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 W Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (212) 946-9305 E-mail: tpacheco@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (866) 252.0878 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CLEAR CHOICE: Siddiqui Balks at Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- EHSAN SIDDIQUI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLEAR CHOICE TECHNOLOGIES LLC D/B/A AQUA PURE SOLUTIONS, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02896-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., December 16, 2024) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its goods, services, and/or properties, the Defendant engages in unsolicited phone calls and continues to call consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations, asserts the complaint. The Defendant also engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing, it adds. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Clear Choice Technologies LLC is a water testing service in Fruitville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com CNMI: 9th Circuit Certifies Question in COLA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as BETTY JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and as a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, and ROSA A. CAMACHO, Retiree and Member of the Settlement Class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RALPH DLG. TORRES, Governor of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Defendant, and NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS SETTLEMENT FUND, Defendant-Appellee, No. 23-16074 (9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands: Did section 8334(e) of the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund Act of 1988, 1989 N. Mar. I. Pub. L. 6-17, grant Class II members of the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund, who were already employed by the Commonwealth when the Act took effect, an accrued cost-of-living increase benefit that may not be diminished or impaired under the terms of Article III, section 20(a) of the Commonwealth Constitution? In 1980, the Northern Mariana Islands established a Retirement Fund for public employees, but the Commonwealth later fell behind on contributions, leading retirees to file a class action. The dispute was settled, with the NMI Settlement Fund designated as Trustee and a settlement agreement guaranteeing class members at least 75% of their statutory "Full Benefits." Plaintiff Rosa A. Camacho, a class member, later claimed the Settlement Fund owed her a decade of unpaid cost-of-living allowances (COLAs). The district court rejected her claim, ruling that the settlement agreement, tied to Commonwealth law, did not guarantee COLAs because they were not provided when she joined the retirement system. Camacho appeals, arguing she accrued a right to COLAs introduced during her membership. Given the lack of controlling caselaw regarding the applicability of Article III, section 20(a) of the Commonwealth Constitution to -- and the potentially significant financial ramifications of -- Plaintiff's claim, the Ninth Circuit requests that the Commonwealth Supreme Court accept certification of the question identified above. Submission of this appeal for decision is vacated and deferred pending the Commonwealth Supreme Court's final response to this certification order. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EkoY3K COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Pitre Sues Over Harmful Toothpaste Products -------------------------------------------------------------- YOLANDA PITRE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY and TOM'S OF MAINE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-09318 (N.D. Calif., December 20, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and violations of the California False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, who purchased toothpaste products from Defendants. The Defendants distribute, market and sell Tom's of Maine toothpaste products, which they tout as safe, healthy, natural, and effective. However, the Defendants' toothpaste products were knowingly contaminated by harmful mold, disease-causing bacteria, and other contaminants, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendants' misconduct and seek injunctive relief and full restitution for the purchase price of the contaminated toothpaste products. Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational consumer products company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com shahin.rezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY: Court Narrows Claims in U.S. Sugar Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as United States Sugar Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Defendant, Civil Action No. 22-21737-Civ-Scola (S.D. Fla.) On June 7, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a breach-of-contract claim (the "Coverage Action") against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff, as agreed under an insurance policy, defense expenses related to a putative class action concerning the Plaintiff's pre-harvest sugarcane burning, Clover Coffie, et al. v. Fla Crystals Corp., et al., Case No. 9:19-cv80730-DMM (S.D. Fla. filed June 4, 2019). Eventually, the Court found in favor of the Plaintiff, and awarded the Plaintiff $3,456,552.50 in defense expenses incurred in Clover Coffie. On September 24, 2024, the Court entered final judgment on the Plaintiff's breach of contract claim for $5,686,552.50, comprised of (1) the $3,456,552.50 described above; (2) $630,000 in pre-judgment and post-judgment interest in connection with (1) above; and (3) $1,600,000 in statutory attorneys' fees, costs, and interest for the amounts sought in the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest. After the Court's order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and before partial final judgment was entered, the Plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint to include statutory and common law bad faith claims against the Defendant. On August 19, 2024, Judge Jonathan Goodman granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's leave to amend. The Plaintiff then filed its FAC on August 26, 2024. In the FAC (the "Bad Faith Action"), the Plaintiff brings one count of statutory bad faith under Florida Statute Sec. 624.155 (Count I) and one common law bad faith claim (Count II). On both counts, the Plaintiff seeks the following damages: (1) the fees associated with U.S. Sugar's pre-suit efforts to secure a defense in excess of the Policy's SIR [Self-Insured Retention], (2) the full amount of the Defense Expenses incurred by U.S. Sugar in the Underlying Lawsuit that were not recovered in the coverage litigation, (3) the fees and costs that U.S. Sugar did not recover in the coverage litigation associated with retaining coverage counsel to recover money owed under the Policy, (4) the fees and costs that U.S. Sugar did not recover in the coverage litigation associated with pursuing the amounts owed to U.S. Sugar as the prevailing party in the coverage litigation under Fla. Stat. Sec. 627.428, (5) the fees and costs associated with retaining counsel to prosecute a bad faith case, and (6) the loss of interest on each of the foregoing amounts. The Defendant first argues that the "Plaintiff's attempt to relitigate the expenses and fees in the Bad Faith Action and recover the same, where it failed to do so in the Coverage Action, is squarely forbidden by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata." The Defendant believes that the Plaintiff's alleged damages related to Defense Expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-suit fees were all recoverable in the Coverage Action and thus are unrecoverable. According to the Court, dismissal of the Plaintiff's FAC based on collateral estoppel and res judicata is not warranted. The Plaintiff's claim for pre-suit damages is also not barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata, the Court finds. Judge Scola ruled that the plaintiff cannot recover the full amount of defense expenses not reimbursed in the underlying lawsuit, as they were deemed unreasonable and thus not recoverable in a bad faith action. However, the plaintiff is allowed to seek damages for other specified categories, including unrecovered attorneys' fees from the fee-shifting dispute and pre-suit efforts, since it prevailed in the coverage litigation. In summary, the plaintiff may pursue damages under categories (1), (3), and (4)-(6) of the First Amended Complaint but not under category (2). The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with respect to the Plaintiff's statutory bad faith claim (Count I). The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted with prejudice with respect to the Plaintiff's common-law bad faith claim (Count II), as well as to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the underlying lawsuit but deemed unreasonable in the Coverage Action. Moreover, no later than January 31, 2025, the parties shall mediate all remaining issues with Michael Hanzman. If the matter does not settle, the Court will enter a scheduling order thereafter. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LNkvQZ COOKUNITY INC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Estrada Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANCISCO ESTRADA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COOKUNITY INC. dba COOKUNITY., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV33025 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 12, 2024) seeks to recover civil penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, for Plaintiff and all other current and former aggrieved employees of the Defendants. Plaintiff Estrada worked for the Defendants from approximately December of 2022 through approximately March of 2024. Allegedly, the Plaintiff was subjected to Defendants' policy or practice of requiring their employees to work more than eight hours per day, 40 hours per week, and/or seven straight workdays in a workweek (in violation of Labor Code sections 551 and 552) without paying them proper overtime wages every day. CookUnity Inc. is a meal delivery service headquartered in New York, NY. The company conducts business in the County of Los Angeles, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Henry Glitz, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com henry@tomorrowlaw.com - and - Bardia Aaron Akhavan, Esq. AKHAVAN & ASSOCIATES 15760 Ventura Boulevard #1720 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (855) 463-4773 E-mail: bardia@baalaw.com CREATE GOOD: Faces Herrera Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. CREATE GOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09465 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant allegedly failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the 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, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, Create Good, Inc. operates the Shop The Novogratz online retail store, as well as the Shop The Novogratz interactive website, https://shopthenovogratz.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about furniture, lighting, home décor, and gifts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal DAVE INC: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Franklin, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge A. David Copperthite denied Dave, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned as SHAMIA FRANLKIN, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. DAVE, INC., efendant, Civil Action No. ADC-24-00687 (D. Md.). This lawsuit arises out of a series of transactions between Dave, Inc., and the Plaintiff. Specifically, Dave, Inc., provides consumers with cash advances via a lending app it operates, "Dave." In the past, the app allowed users to obtain advances of up to $250, but currently allows users to obtain advances of up to $500. Users must connect a bank account and a payment card to obtain an advance. Dave then analyzes bank account history using proprietary underwriting criteria to determine whether a user is eligible for an advance and the amount of an advance that a user is eligible to obtain. Plaintiff claims that, "in practice," these criteria prevent consumers from obtaining an advance unless they have a recurring source of income directly deposited into their account. Plaintiff further claims that Dave's criteria also limit most users to amounts that are far below the $250 and $500 advertised maximum advance amount. Consumers must pay a $1.00 fee to obtain any type of advance and must pay a $1.99-$5.99 express fee to obtain an expedited advance. Plaintiff claims that the fees charged on Dave's advances are significant, yielding APRs in the triple digits. These and other facts underly Plaintiff's claims against Dave, Inc., specifically for Violation of the Consumer Loan Law (Count I) and Violation of the Consumer Protection Act (Count II). "The standard of review on a motion to compel arbitration under the [FAA] is 'akin to the burden on summary judgment.'" As it concerns the FAA, the law "provides for the enforceability of arbitration agreements and specifies procedures for conducting arbitrations and enforcing arbitration awards." Section 2 of the FAA mandates that "an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable," with limited exceptions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has further stated application of the FAA requires demonstration of four elements: (1) the existence of a dispute between the parties, (2) a written agreement that includes an arbitration provision which purports to cover the dispute, (3) the relationship of the transaction, which is evidenced by the agreement, to interstate or foreign commerce, and (4) the failure, neglect or refusal of the defendant to arbitrate the dispute. The Court notes the first element is satisfied since there is a dispute between the parties. Turning to the second element, the parties dispute whether Plaintiff knowingly entered a valid agreement to arbitrate the current dispute. When asserting the existence of a contract, one "must demonstrate that the person alleged to be bound by the contract (1) had 'reasonable notice of an offer' to enter into the contract and (2) 'manifested' assent to it." The real issue in this case is whether Plaintiff had notice that she was agreeing to arbitrate any dispute. Defendant argues that it provided Plaintiff with notice of the arbitration agreement, and that Plaintiff further manifested assent to this agreement. Specifically, Defendant reasons that Plaintiff twice encountered a screen that read, "By joining I agree to Dave's Privacy Policy, TOS & Electronic Communication Consent," and that Plaintiff clicked a "Join Dave" button on that screen. Defendant argues that emails it sent to Plaintiff and other users contain a link to terms that include an arbitration agreement, and that these emails further put Plaintiff on actual and constructive notice of the agreement to arbitrate. Lastly, Defendant points to the fact that Plaintiff received and repaid several cash advance's using Defendant's app as evidence that Plaintiff was on notice here, the Court notes. Defendant reasons that, in addition to the screens Plaintiff viewed as she created her account, Plaintiff also received emails from Defendant following the transaction that linked to its terms of service and the agreement to arbitrate. The Court finds that argument lacks any merit since the factual inquiry is at the time the Plaintiff entered into the contract -- did she have notice of the arbitration language, not after the fact. Defendant further argues that that the fact Plaintiff utilized its app and repaid advances demonstrates that Plaintiff agreed to the terms of the arbitration agreement at issue. That argument is lacking for the same reasons. Plaintiff argues that this evidence is insufficient to prove that Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate her claims and requests that this Court deny Defendant's motion. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that the screen that Defendant presented to Plaintiff does not provide reasonable notice of an arbitration agreement, and that "the emails that Dave sends to users simply include a link to Dave's terms, which does not, on its own, provide reasonable notice." Considering the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court concludes that the pages failed to provide Plaintiff with reasonable notice that she was agreeing to arbitrate any potential claims she may have against Dave. Other interactions with the Plaintiff, whether they be emails or financial transactions, also fail to show that Defendant conveyed proper notice to Plaintiff, the Court adds. After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties, together with the relevant evidence, the Court agrees with Plaintiff on the issue of notice in this case and will thus deny the Defendant's motion. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=evHm2r DAVE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Dave. Inc (NASDAQ: DAVE) resulting from allegations that Dave may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Dave securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=32893 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On December 30, 2024, the Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), announced a civil enforcement action against Dave Inc. and its co-founder, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Jason Wilk, for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA). The government's lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled consumers by deceptively advertising Dave's cash advances, charging hidden fees, misrepresenting how Dave uses customers' tips and charging recurring monthly fees without providing a simple mechanism to cancel them. On this news, Dave shares opened at $84.00 on December 31, 2024, representing a drop of over 10% from the day before. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. 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] DC WHITE PLAINS: Former Workers Seek Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------- RUDIS REYES and ERICK BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DC WHITE PLAINS LLC (D/B/A DON COQUI), DON COQUI HOLDING COMPANY, LLC (D/B/A DON COQUI), RENE RODRIGUEZ, and FREDY GUERRERO, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-09522 (S.D.N.Y., December 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law and the spread of hours and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants who were employed as a chef and a cook. The Plaintiffs assert that they worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked. DC WHITE PLAINS LLC owns, operates, and controls a Latin American restaurant, located in White Plains, New York, under the name "Don Coqui." [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 DISCOUNT AUTO: Property Not Disabled-Friendly, Pardo Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-25040 (S.D. Fla., December 20, 2024) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant, DISCOUNT AUTO PARTS, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees a commercial property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the business therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff found the commercial property and the businesses to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property that have likewise posed a risk of injury, embarrassment, and discomfort to him. The Defendant has 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 suit. The Plaintiff is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA. He uses a wheelchair to ambulate. Discount Auto Parts, LLC provides retail sale of automotive replacement parts and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 553-3464 E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com amejias@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Telephone: (305) 350-3103 E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com DUKE ENERGY: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Saunders Says ---------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01074 (W.D.N.C., December 12, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers, including Plaintiff's. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the Plaintiff. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed during the Data Breach. They have a continuing interest in ensuring that their information is and remains safe, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief, asserts the Plaintiff. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC is an American energy holding company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 E-mail: sharris@milberg.com EMPIRE SUPER: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------------- ELEONOR REYES, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class v. EMPIRE SUPER BUILDERS, INC, EMPIRE SUPER STRUCTURE INC, LUXURY MANAGEMENT NY, INC., and MARLIN ORLENY RAMOS CALIX SR, Case No. 1:24-cv-09934 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, due to a fixed salary, and unpaid wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants regularly scheduled Plaintiff to work six (6) days per week, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., for a total of 54 hours per week. However, the Defendants compensated the Plaintiff at a fixed salary of $170.00 per day, or $1,020.00 per 6-day workweek, regardless of how many hours he worked each workweek. Similarly, the Defendants paid FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members fixed salaries notwithstanding the hours they actually worked during the week, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief as a collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b), on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including laborers, construction workers, contractors, apprentices, carpenters, electricians, painters, estimators, surveyors, pipefitters, welders, roofers, ironworkers, operators, installers, plumbers, engineers, specialists, and foremen) employed by the Defendants on or after the date that is six years before the filing of the Complaint ("FLSA Collective Plaintiffs"). The Plaintiff further seeks to recover compensation for late payment of wages; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs. Mr. Reyes was employed by the Defendants as a laborer for Defendants' Luxury Management NY, Inc. from June 2023 to March 2024. Empire Super contracts and subcontracts construction projects.[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 ENHANCE HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Turner Due May 9 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONSWALLO TURNER, et al., v. ENHANCE HEALTH LLC, et al., Case No. 0:24-cv-60591-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Melissa Damian entered an order setting trial and pre-trial schedule, requiring mediation, and referring certain matters to Magistrate Judge. -- Jury Trial: Jan. 26, 2026 -- The parties shall select a mediator Jan. 17, 2025 in accordance with Local Rule 16.2: -- The parties shall file all motions to Feb. 14, 2025 amend pleadings or to join parties: -- The parties shall exchange expert witness Feb. 28, 2025 summaries or reports on issues of class certification: -- The parties shall exchange rebuttal March 28, 2025 expert witness summaries or reports on issues of class certification: -- Deadline for completing class April 25, 2025 certification discovery and discovery as to named Plaintiffs: -- Plaintiffs' motion for class May 9, 2025 certification shall be filed: -- Defendants' opposition to the motion June 6, 2025 for class certification shall be filed: -- Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion July 7, 2025 for class certification shall be filed: -- The parties shall exchange expert witness Aug. 12, 2025 summaries or reports as to merits: -- The parties shall exchange rebuttal Sept. 12, 2025. expert witness summaries or reports as to merits: -- All merits discovery, including expert Sept. 26, 2025 discovery, shall be completed: -- The parties must have completed Oct. 13, 2025 mediation and filed a mediation report: Enhance Health is a senior-focused digital insurance agency. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GsOoeU at no extra charge.[CC] ENPHASE ENERGY: Pension Fund Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------- THE TRUSTEES OF THE WELFARE AND PENSION FUNDS OF LOCAL 464A - PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENPHASE ENERGY, INC., BADRINARAYANAN KOTHANDARAMAN, and RAGHUVEER BELUR, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-09038 (N.D. Cal., December 13, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Enphase common stock between April 25, 2023, and October 22, 2024, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the Company's business and operations. Specifically, the Defendants systematically overstated the Company's ability to maintain its pricing levels and market share for microinverter products in Europe in the face of competition from low-cost, Chinese alternatives. On this news, the price of Enphase common stock declined $13.76 per share, or nearly 15%, from a close of $92.23 per share on October 22, 2024, to close at $78.47 per share on October 23, 2024. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the Company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, says the suit. Enphase Energy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices in Fremont, California. Enphase develops, manufactures, and sells solar microinverters, which are primarily used in residential solar installations to convert solar panel output from direct current to alternating current.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Joost, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 1850 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 400-3000 Facsimile: (415) 400-3001 E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com - and - Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. Darren J. Check, Esq. Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq. Joshua S. Keszczyk, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (610) 667-7706 Fax: (610) 667-7056 E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com dcheck@ktmc.com rdegnan@ktmc.com gjarvis@ktmc.com jkeszczyk@ktmc.com ETL OF NEW YORK: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- ZPEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Etl of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09498 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 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. The Plaintiff encountered several access barriers when he attempted to purchase Defendant's products on the website. Moreover, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's alleged intentional discrimination 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. Etl of New York, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://tecompanytea.com, which offers Taiwanese teas and handmade tea snacks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com EXCALIBUR PIZZA: Faces Jordan Class Action Suit in Cal. Super. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EXCALIBUR PIZZA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. The case is captioned as KIMBERLY JORDAN, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCALIBUR PIZZA LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al., Case No. 24CV021313 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the employment related laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jill H. Talley. Excalibur Pizza operates as a fast food restaurant. The Company provides pizza, sandwich, salad, and beverage.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Bibiyan Law Group, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd, Ste 300 Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com EXXON MOBIL: Misrepresents Recyclability of Plastics, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BILLIE RODRIGUEZ, DANIEL ERWIN, MICHAEL B. ACKERMAN, and KYLE FOREMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, CHEVRON USA INC., CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CORPORATION, DUPONT de NEMOURS, INC., DUPONT CORPORATION, CELANESE CORPORATION, DOW INC., DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, LYONDELLBASELL INDUSTRIES N.V., and AMERICAN CHEMISTRY COUNCIL, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00803-SRB (W.D. Mo., December 16, 2024) arises from the Defendants' profit-driven decision to promote the idea to the American consumer that plastics are recyclable and better for the environment, when in reality only a tiny fraction of plastics are ever recycled. According to the complaint, the Defendants' false representations regarding the recyclability of plastics led to increased production of plastic products, increased demand for plastics products, increased prices for plastic products and corresponding issues with the remediation of plastic waste, all of which have harmed the citizens of Missouri and other states. Through this Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, seeks an injunction to prohibit Defendants from advertising their plastic products as recyclable, and seeks damages for the increased cost of plastic products purchased by Plaintiffs during the Class period. The Plaintiffs also seek damages under state laws to remedy the high prices they paid because of Defendants' conduct. Plaintiff Rodriguez is a resident of the State of Missouri and purchased plastic products in the states of Missouri and Kansas. Exxon Mobil Corporation is the world's largest plastic producing company in revenue and market capitalization with headquarters in Spring, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Isaac L. Diel, Esq. W. Greg Wright, Esq. Sarah T. Bradshaw, Esq. Hammons P. Hepner, Esq. Brandon C. Landt, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 W. 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 261-7564 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com idiel@midwest-law.com gwright@midwest-law.com sbradshaw@midwest-law.com hhepner@midwest-law.com blandt@midwest-law.com FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Wilson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAIRWAY INDEPENDENT MORTGAGE CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00924-wmc (W.D. Wis., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted marketing text messages to residential telephone numbers registered with the National Do-Not-Call Registry (DNC Registry) without prior express invitation or permission. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered actual harm as a result of the Defendant's misconduct including invasion of their privacy, intrusion into their lives, and private nuisance. Fairway Independent Mortgage Corp. is a mortgage provider in Wisconsin. [BN] FAVE REALTY: Vickers Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- LACHAE VICKERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAVE REALTY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-08607-EK-TAM (E.D.N.Y., December 17, 2024) is a putative class action against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in aggressive unsolicited telemarketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process, asserts the complaint. The Defendant utilizes aggressive marketing to push its products and services without regards to consumers' rights under the TCPA, it adds. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Fave Realty, Inc. is a real estate brokerage based out of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com FORD MOTOR: Samuels Files Suit Over Vehicle Defect -------------------------------------------------- ALEX SAMUELS, BRADLEY CARICOFE, SHAWN THIBODEAUX, JULIE THIBODEAUX, CATHY CARROLL, STEPHEN JACKSON, JAMES KOHEN, and JOHN WIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-13332-JJCG-EAS (E.D. Mich., December 13, 2024) is a consumer class action arising from Defendant Ford Motor Company's design, manufacture, and sale of defective 2020-present Ford Explorer 2.3L or 3.0L ST vehicles. According to the complaint, the Class Vehicles are uniformly and dangerously defective in that they are equipped with a rear subframe assembly which attaches the rear axle with a single horizontal mounting bolt which does or can cause or otherwise result in a sudden, even violent, disconnection of the rear drive shaft assembly or its component parts, especially including while the vehicle is in motion. The Defect results in the total loss of driver control -- steering, breaking and speed control -- of the Class Vehicle while in operation, says the suit. Rather than repair the Defect under warranty, Ford has also hidden the Defect by instructing dealers to perform a "software update" and/or replacing the Rear Subframe Assembly only if and when the subframe bolt fails -- and just once, the suit contends. Because of Ford's fraudulent concealment of the Defect in violation of state consumer protection acts and the common law of fraudulent concealment, its breaches of express warranties and implied warranties of merchantability, and its failure to act in disclosing and providing a remedy for the Defect, owners and lessees of Defective Class Vehicles are injured and in fact, incurred damages, and suffered ascertainable losses in money and property, says the complaint. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and trucks.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. Mitchell J. Kendrick, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com mjk@millerlawpc.com - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Laura E. Goolsby, Esq. Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@Capstonelawyers.com Laura.Goolsby@Capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@Capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Abigail J. Gertner, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. Natalie Lesser, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net agertner@bm.net apark@bm.net nlesser@bm.net - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS, & BACINE 600 W Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Muriel Kenfield-Kelleher, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com jlichtman@lchb.com mkenfieldkelleher@lchb.com - and - Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 222 2nd Avenue South, #1640 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: akaufman@lchb.com - and - Ketan A. Patel, Esq. CORPUS LAW PATEL, LLC P.O. Box 724713 Atlanta, GA 31139 Telephone: (678) 597-8020 E-mail: kp@corpus-law.com FORME LLC: Chambers Sues Over Deceptive Representations on Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORME, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10697 (C.D. Cal., December 12, 2024) seeks monetary damages, restitution, and public injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendant's: (a) deceptive and untruthful promises to provide "free shipping" on clothing merchandise orders placed on its website; and (2) deceptive representations concerning FDA endorsement of its clothing products. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated federal guidance by adding the Shipping Protection Fees as line items well after the consumer adds to shopping cart, and by failing to disclose the nature of these fees. The Defendant used its "FDA registration" status to deceive consumers into purchasing its products, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Tampa, FL, Forme is an American company specializing in clothing and undergarments that improves posture. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com arosenberg@kalielgold.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com FULL SAIL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Buxton TCPA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned as LAUREN BUXTON, Plaintiff, v. FULL SAIL, LLC, and THE OFFICE GURUS, LLC, Defendants, Case No: 6:24-cv-747-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff opposes the motion. Full Sail is "a private for-profit university," and The Office Gurus is a telemarketing services company. According to Plaintiff, Full Sail "contracted with The Office Gurus to make aggressive telemarketing calls on its behalf soliciting its services," and Plaintiff received such calls to her cell phone. Plaintiff uses her cell phone number "for residential purposes" including "personal, family, and household use." She "relies on" the number "to communicate with her family and friends." The number "is not associated with a business." The number is Plaintiff's "only personal telephone number"; she does not have another cell phone number or a landline number. Although Plaintiff's cell phone number "has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since June 20[,] 2017," in May 2023 she "began receiving telephone calls" to her cell phone "from The Office Gurus on behalf of Full Sail that solicited Full Sail's services," These calls came from various phone numbers "associated with online telemarketing complaints." Plaintiff claims that "at the time of the calls," Defendants simply "did not have written do-not-call policies" or had policies that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, or "were never properly implemented." Plaintiff filed a class action in October 2023 against Full Sail in the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging TCPA violations due to unsolicited calls. Full Sail moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and other grounds, also requesting a venue transfer. The court granted the transfer. Full Sail argued that any calls were likely made by The Office Gurus, criticizing the original complaint for not alleging an agency relationship. Plaintiff amended the complaint to add The Office Gurus as a defendant and assert such a relationship. The amended complaint includes two causes of action for two classes. The first alleges violations of the National Do-Not-Call Registry, with Plaintiff and Registry Class members receiving two or more solicitations in a 12-month period despite their registry status. The second alleges failure to maintain a "do not call" policy, including lack of personnel training, and failure to record or honor such requests. Defendants now seek dismissal, claiming the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading and fails to state a claim. According to Defendants, the amended complaint is a shotgun pleading because it does not "identify which allegations pertain to which [D]efendant." The Court disagrees. The amended complaint alleges that The Office Gurus made the calls as Full Sail's agent and accordingly seeks to hold the former directly liable and the latter vicariously liable. The amended complaint provides Defendants with "adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests." Because it is certainly not "virtually impossible to know which allegations of fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief," the Court does not dismiss the amended complaint as a shotgun pleading. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims fail because the calls were made to her cell phone, not a residential telephone. However, under the 2003 FCC Order, cell phone users who request to be added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry are considered residential subscribers under the TCPA. Plaintiff's allegations that she uses her cell phone for personal, non-business purposes and does not have another personal number align with the FCC's interpretation. Additionally, the amended complaint states that Plaintiff is the sole user of her cell phone, which has been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since June 2017. Given these facts, the Court finds that the residential-subscriber requirement is met and does not dismiss the amended complaint. Full Sail contends that the amended complaint insufficiently alleges that Full Sail initiated the calls and in fact alleges that The Office Gurus initiated them instead. The Court disagrees. The amended complaint states that The Office Gurus initiated the calls on Full Sail's behalf. The amended complaint sets out three theories of agency under which Full Sail may be held vicariously liable for the alleged misconduct of The Office Gurus: actual authority, apparent authority, and ratification. Accordingly, the claims against Full Sail are not dismissed for failure to allege that Full Sail initiated the calls. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R8MSGY GONG CHA TEA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Gong Cha Tea, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09484 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff has been denied the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and services of Defendant's website as a result of accessibility barriers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now 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. Based in Jericho, NY, Gong Cha Tea, LLC owns and operates the website, Gongchausa.com, which serves as an online store that allows its users to view information about bubble teas and make purchases. [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 GOODLEAP LLC: Reynosa Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Carla Reynosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goodleap, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-03645-SMB (D. Ariz., December 19, 2024) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated all overtime pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a telephone-dedicated employee from approximately October 2021 to March 2023. She is seeking recovery of overtime wages owed to her during the time she worked for Defendant as a telephone-dedicated employee. Goodleap, LLC is a technology company that delivers financing and software products for sustainable solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com cpsons@bormeslaw.com - and - Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 East Wacker Drive Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 726-3400 E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com - and - Michelle R. Matheson, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C. 15300 North 90th Street Suite 550 Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Telephone: (480) 889-8951 E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com GOOGLE LLC: Calhoun Seeks to File Class Cert Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to file under seal portions of their reply in support of renewed motion for class certification: Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers' Standing Order in Civil Cases, and the Stipulated Protective Order entered in this matter, Plaintiffs submit this Administrative Motion to Seal the following material submitted with Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification, to the extent that such material is quoted, summarized, or otherwise reflected in the documents (or portions thereof) indicated below. As outlined in Section 12(b) of the Court's Standing Order, the reasons for sealing each document will be addressed in a forthcoming omnibus motion. Dkt. No. Document Sealed/Redacted Party Claiming or Portion of /Not Under Seal Confidentiality Document Sought to Be Sealed 1080-1 Plaintiffs' Reply Sealed Google in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification 1080-2 Plaintiffs' reply Redacted Google in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification 1080-3 Supplemental Joint Not Under Seal N/A Attorney Declaration of Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Lesley E. Weaver, and David A. Straite in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3OWsk6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com - and - Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq. Jayne Conroy, Esq. An Truong, Esq. Eric Johnson, Esq. Jennifer 'Jenny' Paulson, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 213-5949 E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com jconroy@ simmonsfirm.com atruong@simmonsfirm.com ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Corban Rhodes, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Julia Veeser, Esq. Adam Prom, Esq. DiCELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com crhodes@dicellolevitt.com akeller@dicellolevitt.com aprom@dicellolevitt.com jveeser@dicellolevitt.com GRAMERCY ELECTRIC: Faces Yamba Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- ANGEL ENRIQUE GAHUI YAMBA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAMERCY ELECTRIC INC., and NICHOLAOS FILIPPAKIS and LOUIS FOUNDOULAKIS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08495 (E.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment at Gramercy Electric. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide with a written wage notice, and failure to furnish with wage statements upon each payment of wages. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a scaffolder, painter, demolition worker and laborer, while performing related miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from June 2020 until August 2024. Gramercy Electric Inc. provides residential electrical services in the Manhattan region of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 GROVE COLLABORATIVE: Walker Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROVE COLLABORATIVE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-13272 (N.D. Ill., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.grove.co, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading structure, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of navigation links, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, lack of alt-text on graphics and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Grove Collaborative, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 352-6997 Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com GSHMAK BAKERY: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Rocano Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MAYRA ALEXANDRA SINCHI ROCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GSHMAK BAKERY INC. and AVRUMI'S BAKERY INC., ABRAHAM BERKOWITZ and RACHEL LEBOVITS, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08721 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2024) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising from Plaintiff's employment at Gshmak Bakery. Plaintiff Rocano was employed by the Defendants as a customer service employee, cashier, cleaner, and food preparer while performing related miscellaneous duties from September 2017 until November 2024. She alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime wages for all hours regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to provide an additional hour of pay at minimum wage for each day worked more than 10 hours, and failure to furnish wage statements and wage written notice. Gshmak Bakery Inc. 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, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 HALEON US: Silva Appeals False Ad Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDERSON SILVA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing their lawsuit entitled Anderson Silva, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Haleon US, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04059-TLT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs filed this class action against the Defendants for alleged deceptive, unlawful, and unfair marketing and sale of Sensodyne Pronamel line of toothpaste. The Plaintiffs brought claims for violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; false advertising; fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; unfair business practices; and unjust enrichment. On Sept. 4, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Trina L. Thompson granted on Dec. 2, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Silva, et al. v. Haleon US, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-7620, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 18, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 23, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 31, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on January 30, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ANDERSON SILVA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Defendants-Appellants HALEON US, INC., et al. are represented by: Megan A. Suehiro, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. Franco A. Corrado, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 2222 Market Street, 12th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 HAMILTON COVE: Court Enforces Stand-Alone Class Action Waiver ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark J. Levin, writing for Consumer Finance Monitor, reports that earlier this year, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Pace v. Hamilton Cove that class action waivers in consumer contracts that do not contain an arbitration clause (i.e., a stand-alone class action waiver) are not per se contrary to public policy. While cautioning that such waivers may be unenforceable if found to be unconscionable or otherwise violative of state law, the court upheld the waiver in this case because the plaintiffs clearly and unambiguously waived their right to maintain a class action and the parties' lease contract was not unconscionable as a matter of law. In Pace, plaintiffs brought a class action against defendants under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) when they discovered that their apartment complex did not have around-the-clock security, contrary to defendants' alleged representations. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims, or strike the class allegations, because the lease agreement contained an express class action waiver in which the plaintiffs agreed that any claims against the defendants would be brought in their "individual capacity," and they "expressly waive[d] any right and/or ability to bring, represent, join or otherwise maintain a Class Action or similar proceeding against [the defendants] . . . in any forum." The trial court denied defendants' motion and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that a class action waiver in a contract that does not contain a mandatory arbitration provision "is unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy." The Appellate Division acknowledged that under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, class action waivers in consumer contracts are valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which preempts inconsistent state law. However, the Appellate Division reasoned, Concepcion and the FAA are "irrelevant" in the absence of an arbitration clause. Therefore, the Appellate Division concluded, stand-alone class action waivers in consumer contracts cannot be enforced as a matter of public policy, regardless of whether they are unconscionable, because they deprive consumers of fundamental procedural and due process rights provided by New Jersey law. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted defendants' motion for leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division's ruling. The court held that the Appellate Division erred in establishing a bright-line rule invalidating class action waivers in consumer contracts in the absence of an arbitration clause. The court emphasized that Concepcion "nowhere suggest that class waivers cannot be enforced outside the arbitration context," and New Jersey law supports the contractual waiver of many rights that advance important goals, including the constitutional right to a jury trial. Still, "a particular class action waiver in a given contract may be unenforceable if found to be unconscionable or invalid under general contract principles." The New Jersey Supreme Court next found that the class action waiver in Pace was not unconscionable under New Jersey law. Among other things, it found that (1) the plaintiffs knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to a class action and were clearly on notice that they could only proceed with a lawsuit against the defendants on an individual basis, (2) while the lease was essentially a take-it-or-leave-it contract, the plaintiffs had time to consult with an attorney and were free to seek out alternative housing arrangements if they disagreed with the lease's terms, as they had the ability to choose from a vast selection of comparably priced apartments, and (3) the class action waiver did not preclude plaintiffs from individually vindicating their statutory rights because in the CFA "there is neither a controlling statutory provision that expressly permits class actions . . . nor a clear statement of public policy disfavoring class action waivers." Since Concepcion is the law of the land and is applicable in both federal and state courts, it is easier to enforce a class action waiver in a consumer contract if it is contained in an arbitration clause governed by the FAA. However, as Pace demonstrates, there can be circumstances in which a stand-alone class waiver is enforceable depending on the facts, the applicable law and/or the jurisdiction involved. The obverse is also true. In fact, in a case we wrote about last year, the Rhode Island Supreme Court refused to enforce a stand-alone class action waiver because that state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides that consumers "may . . . bring an action on behalf of themselves and other similarly injured and situated persons to recover damages." We will continue to update you on decisions in this important area. [GN] HILCORP ENERGY: Parties Seek More Time to File Discovery Deadlines ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gregg B. Colton, and Cindy H. Colton, as Trustees of the Gregg B. Colton Trust, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, v. Hilcorp Energy Development, LP, Case No. 2:22-cv-00149-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to extend the dates in the Court's Nov. 18, 2024 order related to certain class certification discovery deadlines. The Parties seek a 31-day extension of the current deadlines to complete class certification discovery, to submit their class certification briefing, and, more importantly, to bring their ongoing efforts to resolve this suit to a conclusion. On Nov. 18, 2024, this Court entered its Order Granting the Parties’ Joint Motion to Extend the Court’s September 6, 2024, Order Related to Certain Class Certification Discovery Deadlines. In their motion seeking that Order, the Parties explained that although Plaintiffs had noticed and taken the deposition of a representative designated by Hilcorp under Rule 30(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Plaintiffs felt that Hilcorp's designated deponent was not adequately prepared to testify regarding many of the subject matters identified and included in Plaintiffs’ Rule 30(b)(6) Notice but that the Parties were currently conferring about additional dates on which the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Hilcorp could be resumed and completed. The Parties further informed the Court that they intended to explore resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims and requested a 45-day extension of then-existing class certification discovery and briefing deadlines to accomplish these matters. Despite the Parties' efforts to complete these tasks, the intervening Thanksgiving and upcoming holidays posed hurdles, especially for Hilcorp, making problematic the Parties’ ability to complete these matters within the timeframe established in the Court’s November 18, 2024, Order. If the Court grants this Joint Motion to Extend, the new deadline for the close of class certification discovery will be January 30, 2025, and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be due on February 27, 2025. Hilcorp operates as an oil and natural gas producer. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sG2jhO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy A. Burrows, Esq. George A. Barton, Esq. Seth K. Jones, Esq. BARTON AND BURROWS, LLC 52010 Johnson Drive, Suite 110 Mission, KS 66205 E-mail: stacy@bartonburrows.com george@bartonburrows.com seth@bartonburrows.com - and - Kelly Shaw, Esq. Travis W. Koch, Esq. KOCH LAW, P.C. 121 W. Carlson Street, Suite 3 Cheyenne, WY 82009 E-mail: kshaw@kochlawpc.com tkoch@kochlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregg C. Laswell, Esq. HICKS THOMAS, LLP 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 547-9100 Facsimile: (713) 547-9150 E-mail: glaswell@hicks-thomas.com - and - Lindsay A. Woznick, Esq. Amanda M. Good, Esq. OF CROWLEY FLECK PLLP 511 West 19th Street, Suite 100 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (307) 426-4100 Facsimile: (307) 426-4099 E-mail: lwoznick@crowleyfleck.com mgood@crowleyfleck.com HOSPITAL SISTERS: Discloses Private Medical Info, Million Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MARY MILLION on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM and ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, OF THE HOSPITAL SISTERS OF THE THIRD ORDER OF ST. FRANCIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-03357-SEM-KLM (C.D. Ill., December 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. As part of its hiring process, Hospital Sisters Health System requires potential employees to submit to a preemployment medical examination during which the potential employees must disclose their family medical history. The Defendants' preemployment application process violates GIPA. An individual's family medical history constitutes "genetic information" under GIPA, and Defendants directly and/or indirectly solicits such information as a precondition of employment, says the suit. Thus, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, bring this action seeking damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. Hospital Sisters Health System is a healthcare system that operates a network of fifteen hospitals and other healthcare facilities throughout the Midwest, including in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. S. Jarret Raab, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 525-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com jraab@milberg.com - and - Zachary Arbitman, Esq. George Donnelly, Esq. FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 567-8300 E-mail: zarbitman@feldmanshepherd.com gdonnelly@feldmanshepherd.com HOT TOPIC: Roberson Alleges Failure to Protect Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ ALANNA ROBERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOT TOPIC, INC. d/b/a HOT TOPIC and BOXLUNCH, and SNOWFLAKE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10772 (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failing to properly secure and protect the sensitive information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated customers and loyalty account members. According to the complaint, the sensitive and personal identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members -- which they entrusted to Hot Topic with the mutual understanding that Hot Topic would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach in or around October 2024. The data breach occurred because the Defendants failed to implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack, says the suit. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose PII was accessed and stolen during the data breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have a continuing interest in ensuring that their PII is properly safeguarded, and they should be entitled to injunctive and other equitable relief. Hot Topic, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores under various brand names, including Hot Topic and BoxLunch.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com HOTUSA GROUP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hilbert Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREL HILBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hotusa Group d/b/a Eurostars Wall Street Hotel New York, Case No. 1:24-cv-09926 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2024) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, update and operate its website and/or mobile application platforms to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The lawsuit says that Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its Website and therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On June 26, 2024, the Plaintiff visited and attempted to access the Defendant's Website using screen-reading software in order to book a reservation. Regrettably, he was unable to do so due to inaccessibility issues. Despite his efforts, the Plaintiff was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of Defendant's goods and services, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction, actual and liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs 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. Eurostars Wall Street provides 56 design rooms. It owns and administers https://www.eurostarshotels.co.uk/eurostars-wall-street.html.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Siegel, Esq. ERIC SIEGEL LAW, PLLC 888 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (771) 220-6116 Facsimile: (202) 223-6625 E-mail: esiegel@ericsiegellaw.com HP HOOD: Rubio Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------ The case styled BENJAMIN RUBIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP HOOD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in California; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV022987, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-at-01614 to the proceeding. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, nine total causes of action, eight of which are for various violations of the California Labor Code and one of which is for "Unfair Competition" under the California Business & Professions Code. HP Hood, LLC manufactures dairy foods. The Company offers milk, cream, ice cream, cottage cheese, sour cream, half and half, and eggnog.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sander van der Heide, Esq. Tashayla Billington, Esq. CDF LABOR LAW LLP 900 University Avenue, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 361-0991 E-mail: svanderheide@cdflaborlaw.com tbillington@cdflaborlaw.com HUMANA INC: Rivera Balks at Unsolicited Telephone Calls ------------------------------------------------------- EDGAR RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMANA INC., a Delaware registered corporation, and SIGNIFY HEALTH, INC., a Delaware registered corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03465 (D. Colo., December 15, 2024) is a class action seeking to stop the Defendants violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act through its pre-recorded calls to Plaintiff and other consumers without consent. According to the complaint, the Defendants place pre-recorded calls to consumers to notify them about health evaluations and preventative screenings, as per Plaintiff's experience. These pre-recorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express written consent of the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, says the suit. Humana Inc. is an insurance company that sells insurance and Medicare plans to consumers throughout the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 237 S Dixie Hwy, Floor 4 Coral Gables, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 469-5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com ICASA COMMERCE: Fails to Properly Pay Drivers, Strippoli Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- GIANFRANCO STRIPPOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ICASA COMMERCE, LLC, VINCENZO R. CARUANA, and DORIS A. PESTANA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-25098 (S.D. Fla., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver and warehouse employee from approximately January 09, 2023, to March 17, 2023. Icasa Commerce, LLC is a distributor of building materials in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ICHIRAN USA: Blind Users Can't Access Online Store, Riley Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ichiran U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09992 (S.D.N.Y., December 28, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.ichiranusa.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inaccurate landmark structure, changing of content without advance warning, ambiguous link texts, inaccurate focus order, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Ichiran U.S.A., Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com IMMUTABLE PTY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to investigate potential securities claims against Immutable resulting from allegations that Immutable may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased IMX tokens you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31342 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On November 1, 2024, Immutable revealed the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had filed a Wells Notice to Immutable over its sales of IMX tokens. Immutable believes that the SEC "are targeting the listing and private sales of IMX in 2021." WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] INSTALLED BUILDING: Mora Suit Alleges Unlawful Labor Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- RAMON RAMIREZ MORA, an individual, and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. INSTALLED BUILDING PRODUCTS DBA OJ INSULATION, a California limited liability company; OJ INSULATION, L.P., a Delaware Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV32962 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 13, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Family Rights Act, Government Code, Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to advise about his leave rights and procedures regarding the taking of protected leave, engagement in disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to reasonably accommodate, retaliatory conduct, failure to prevent discrimination or retaliation, and wrongful termination. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants between June 2020 to December 15, 2023 in various positions, including but not limited to installer. Installed Building Products, dba OJ Insulation, is a limited liability company doing business in Los Angeles County, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Skripko, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. SKRIPKO, JR., PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (949) 476-2000 Facsimile: (949) 476-2007 E-mail: rwskripko@skripkolaw.com - and - Paul J. Denis, Esq. Ethan E. Rasi, Esq. DENIS & RASI, PC 38 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92606 Telephone: (714) 242-4557 Facsimile: (213) 443-9601 E-mail: pdenis@denisrasilaw.com erasi@denisrasilaw.com ITS LOGISTICS: March 10 Settlement Approval Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the parties in the case captioned as KEITH GUTHRIE, Plaintiff, v. ITS LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00729-KES-EPG (E.D. Calif.) to file their motion for preliminary approval by no later than March 10, 2025. On May 5, 2021, Defendant removed this action from the Merced County Superior Court, with the complaint alleging class action and Private Attorneys General Act claims relating to purported labor violations. On February 29, 2024, the Court vacated the case deadlines to allow the parties to pursue settlement. The parties have since filed multiple joint status reports, keeping the Court updated on the status of settlement negotiations. The latest report, filed on December 9, 2024, states as follows: On August 6, 2024, the Parties had a second mediation in this action with mediator Tripper Ortman and, after further exchange of information and data, reached a class and PAGA settlement of the claims in this action. The Parties are currently working to finalize and execute a long-form settlement agreement and anticipate filing a motion for preliminary approval within 90 days. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V7ieR3 JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Court Tosses Grodnick Coal Tar Shampoo Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID GRODNICK, individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 24-2616 (MAS) (JBD) (D.N.J.). This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s and Kenvue Inc.'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff David Grodnick's Class Action Complaint, brought by Plaintiff individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. Plaintiff opposed, and Defendants replied. Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey who, at least once in August 2021, purchased a Neutrogena T/Gel product (the "Coal Tar Shampoo Products") that was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, packaged, and/or sold by Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff purchased the Original Formula. Defendants, in manufacturing the Coal Tar Shampoo Products, did not reduce or eliminate benzene, properly test and monitor the Coal Tar Shampoo Products, or disclose that the Coal Tar Shampoo Products contained any amount of benzene. The Coal Tar Shampoo Products did, however, contain measurable amounts of benzene, as evidenced by certain testing. On the above allegations, Plaintiff brings seven causes of action: (1) Breach of Express Warranty; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty; (3) Fraud (Affirmative Misrepresentation, Omission, and Concealment); (4) Negligent Misrepresentation and Omission; (5) violation of Consumer Protection Laws; (6) Negligence; and (7) Unjust Enrichment. At the outset, however, Defendants contend that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to bring any of these claims. The Court agrees. Defendants contend that Plaintiff fails to adequately allege a "particularized” injury. In this case, all of Plaintiff's claims are predicated on the theory that: (1) the Coal Tar Shampoo Products contained the harmful substance benzene; (2) Defendants did not disclose this fact; and (3) therefore Plaintiff was economically injured where he did not receive the benefit-of-the-bargain when purchasing the Coal Tar Shampoo Products because he did not bargain for the undisclosed presence of benzene, i.e., he purchased an unsafe product worth less than the safe product he believed he purchased. Notably, the Third Circuit recently found that this general theory of economic injury can be sufficient to establish Article III standing where a plaintiff avers he unknowingly purchased products "contaminated" with benzene. The Third Circuit's finding, however, was predicated on the plaintiff successfully alleging a particularized economic injury. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not adequately allege a particularized economic injury relating to Defendants' sale of the Coal Tar Shampoo Products. Plaintiff offers a dearth of allegations related to: (1) Plaintiff's individual purchase; (2) the testing that allegedly evidences benzene contamination; and (3) any other facts that might suggest widespread contamination of the Coal Tar Shampoo Products such that this Court can infer it was plausible that Plaintiff purchased a contaminated product in 2021. As such, the Court has no choice but to presume Plaintiff did not suffer a particularized injury capable of conferring standing upon him in this action. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4yutMD JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Yousefzadeh Appeals False Ad Claim Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA YOUSEFZADEH, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying Plaintiff Newton's Pharmacy, Inc.'s motion to alter judgment in the lawsuit styled In Re: Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 1:23-md-3089, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated state and federal law because they (1) knew no later than January 2016 that oral phenylephrine (Oral PE) does not relieve sinus/nasal congestion, (2) falsely advertised and misbranded PE Products to consumers as doing so, and (3) conspired to defraud and mislead consumers, the public, and (for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) purposes only, also) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On Nov. 12, 2024, Judge Brian M. Cogan entered judgment in this case. All claims in the complaints were dismissed with prejudice. On Nov. 15, 2024, Plaintiff Newton's Pharmacy, Inc. (NPI) moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of its Lanham Act claim. Reasoning that the Court's order dismissing the initial streamlined complaint does not apply to federal false-advertising claims, NPI seeks a remand of its claim to the Southern District of Ohio. On Dec. 16, 2024, Judge Cogan entered an Order denying NPI's motion to alter judgment. The Court ruled that NPI has not shown that it is entitled to the extraordinary relief afforded by Rule 60(b). The appellate case is captioned In Re: Oral Phenylephrine Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 24-3296, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on December 20, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDRA YOUSEFZADEH, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 - and – Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS OVERHOLTZ PLLC 17 East Main Street, Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 - and – Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY/GROMBACHER LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 - and – James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road, 2nd Floor Roseland, NJ 07068 - and – Adam J. Levitt, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC 10 North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 - and – Elizabeth Fegan, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 South Wacker Drive, 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 - and – Michael A. London, Esq. DOUGLAS & LONDON P.C. 59 Maiden Lane, 6th Floor New York, NY 10038 - and – Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 - and – Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 - and – Lindsey N. Scarcello, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 - and – Sarah Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 - and – Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 - and – James Bernard, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 390 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017 - and – Mark J. Lesko, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, PA 2317 Montauk Highway Bridgehampton, NY 11932 - and – Cara D. Edwards, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 - and – Andrew Soukup, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850, Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 - and – Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 JRA MARBLE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Contreras Says --------------------------------------------------------- JAIR CONTRERAS, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. JRA MARBLE AND CONSTRUCTION LLC, XTR SOLUTIONS CORP., and JUAN RODRIGUEZ, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24966 (S.D. Fla., December 18, 2024) is an action to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages under Florida common law and Florida Statutes and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a construction worker from approximately December 2022 until his wrongful termination on or about August 2024. The Plaintiff worked approximately an average of 70 hours per week without being compensated at the rate of not less than one- and one-half times the regular rate at which he was employed. The Corporate Defendants also failed to pay all wages due to him and breached the agreement and did not pay the Plaintiff approximately $25,000 for his work, says the suit. JRA Marble and Construction LLC is a construction company conducting business in Orange County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-1475 E-mail: martin@legalopinionusa.com JUSTFAB LLC: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT Under Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER RIVAS, individually, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act v. JUSTFAB, LLC DBA TECHSTYLE FASHION GROUP, a Delaware limited liability company, FABLETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, FABLETICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 24CV449959 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former employees for all hours worked, resulting in a failure to pay all minimum wages and overtime wages pursuant to California Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The complaint challenges the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the stated provisions of the Labor Code against the identified group of employees. Plaintiff Tyler Rivas is an individual residing in the State of California. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants within the statutory time period. TechStyle Fashion is an online, membership fashion retailer that has a portfolio of five direct-to-consumer brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq. Shelby Miner, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (818) 230-7502 Facsimile: (818) 230-7259 E-mail: doug@justicelawcorp.com statavos@justicelawcorp.com sminer@justicelawcorp.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Hearing Aid Exclusion Violates ACA, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JASON M. DELESSERT, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02087 (W.D. Wash., December 18, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and challenging the disability-based discrimination arising out of the design and administration of the Hearing Aid Exclusion, both facially and as applied to Plaintiff and the proposed class. Plaintiff Delessert 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. The Plaintiff, however, cannot obtain coverage for this needed medical device because his Kaiser health plan excludes all coverage for hearing aids, the suit asserts. The complaint contends that the Defendant 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. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. is a California nonprofit corporation that is the parent or holding company for various Kaiser health plans across the country, including Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington, Inc., the health plan that issued and delivered Delessert's coverage. Kaiser is the parent/holding company of health insurers and administrators that engage in health programs or activities and receive federal financial assistance.[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) 223-0303 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 KOBI AUTO: Faces Mazariegos Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO CHRISTOPHER GALICIA MAZARIEGOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KOBI AUTO COLLISION AND PAINT CENTER INC. and YACOV ZEITUNY, as an individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-08710 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2024) arises from the Defendants' egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a polisher, cleaner and car detailer, while performing related miscellaneous duties from February 2022 until January 2024. He alleges that Defendants willfully failed to pay him overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of one and a half times the regular wage, failed to provide with a written wage notice, and failed to furnish wage statements upon each payment of wages. Kobi Auto Collision and Paint Center Inc. provides auto body repair and painting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART: Court Tosses Simijanovic MCPA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Susan K. DeClercq of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as STEVAN SIMIJANOVIC, Plaintiff, v. KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-12882 (E.D. Mich.). The plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. In its online advertising, KLM boasts of its commitment to "Fly Responsibly," which it defines as "taking a leading role in creating a more sustainable future for aviation." KLM notes its commitment "to the targets defined in the Paris Climate Agreement" and even represents on the exterior of its planes that it is "flying on biofuel." Based on KLM's advertising of its environmental commitments, Simijanovic believed it to be a more sustainable option than other airlines. Between October 2019 and October 2023, Simijanovic purchased tickets for flights with KLM because he believed that flying with KLM would be better for the environment. Upon a closer look, however, Simijanovic came to believe that KLM's sustainability initiatives fell short of their advertised standards. For instance, despite KLM's claim that it is "committed to the targets defined in the Paris Climate Agreement," KLM's Climate Action Plan projections are "inconsistent" with the Agreement's goals. Further, KLM's claim that its planes are "flying on biofuel" -- advertised on the sides of its airplanes -- is an overstatement at best, considering KLM reported that less than 0.2% of all the fuel used in its flights was "sustainable biojet fuel." Simijanovic alleges that had he known these claims were false or misleading, he would not have flown with KLM or, at least, would not have paid as much to fly with KLM. So, on November 13, 2023, Simijanovic filed a putative class action against KLM in federal court, alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, although he does not specify which provisions KLM violated. EC Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, filed February 27, 2024, Simijanovic appears to be bringing a claim for unfair and deceptive practices. On March 19, 2024, KLM moved to dismiss, arguing Simijanovic's claim must be dismissed for several reasons, including preemption, lack of standing, and failing to state a claim. KLM also noted that counsel for Simijanovic has filed nearly identical suits, both against KLM and against other airlines, in the District of Maryland, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Southern District of New York, each of which was dismissed on preemption grounds or for lack of standing. In its motion, KLM argues that there are three independent reasons Simijanovic's MCPA amended complaint should be dismissed. First, the sole claim is expressly preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act because it relates to KLM's rates and services. Second, Simijanovic lacks Article III standing because he fails to allege that he did not receive the services he paid for. Third, the amended complaint fails to state a claim because: (1) the MCPA, by its own terms, does not apply to airline pricing; (2) Simijanovic has not plausibly alleged injury; (3) Simijanovic did not allege that he purchased his ticket or tickets for personal, family, or household use; (4) Simijanovic has not alleged a specific provision of the MCPA that KLM violated; (5) the MCPA claim is not pled with the particularity required by Civil Rule 9(b); and (6) KLM did not make any misleading statements. Judge DeClercq says, "Because Simijanovic's MCPA claim relates to airline rates and advertising, it is preempted by the Act. As such, Simijanovic's amended complaint must be dismissed." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BjqmTm LAKE CITY: Court Okays Class Action Settlement in McAllister Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as MELINDA McALLISTER On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF V. LAKE CITY CREDIT, LLC, DEFENDANT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-CV-41-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.), Judge Sharion Aycock of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi granted the parties' joint motion for settlement approval. On March 8, 2022, Melinda McAllister, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, initiated this civil action by filing her Class Action Complaint [1] against Lake City Credit. This civil action arose from purported violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to McAllister's Class Action Complaint [1], Lake City Credit is a debt collector as that term is defined by the FDCPA. McAllister contends that Lake City Credit purchased debt from an entity named Fingerhut. McAllister allegedly owed Fingerhut an outstanding balance on an account that was supposedly active from 2008 through 2015; McAllister disputed owing such a balance as she never opened said account with Fingerhut. McAllister alleged that Lake City Credit then began sending her letters, which ran afoul of the FDCPA. On October 25, 2022, the Court granted McAllister's request for class certification. At a settlement conference that Magistrate Judge Sanders convened on February 13, 2024, the parties reached a settlement subject to the undersigned's approval. As articulated in the Joint Motion, the general terms of the settlement between the seven class members and Lake City Credit are as follows: Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement reached between the parties, Lake City Credit, LLC agreed to pay the total sum of fourteen thousand dollars ($8,000.00 to the plaintiffs and $6,000 as attorney's fees to Class Counsel). Said amount to be paid in full within seven (7) months of the order approval Class Settlement. Said amount to be paid at $2,000 per month tendered to Class Counsel beginning on the thirtieth day after said Order. Said payments shall continue to be made on the same date of each month thereafter until paid in full. The Court finds that these considerations favor settlement approval: First, the class representative and class counsel have adequately represented the class. Second, it is clear that this settlement was negotiated at arms' length. The Court also finds that the relief provided for the class 1s adequate. The largest consideration driving this conclusion is the lack of financial certainty of Lake City Credit. The parties and Magistrate Judge Sanders, aware of this issue, reached this tentative resolution in an attempt to prevent the class members from being left without any relief. The Court additionally notes that the settlement at this early stage in the proceedings prevents the parties from engaging in litigation and incurring costs associated therewith. Finally, the proposed settlement treats class members equitably relative to each other -- all class members will receive $1,000 except for the class representative (Melinda McAllister) who will receive $2,000 in recognition of her additional efforts associated with the case. This is equitable. Ultimately, the Court has considered the parties' proposed settlement and finds it to be fair and reasonable. It will be approved. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=alUYGn LAMB WESTON: Conspires to Fix Frozen Potato Prices, Shegian Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yoland Shegian d/b/a LA Shawarma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.; Lamb Weston, Inc.; Lamb Weston BSW, LLC; Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc.; Lamb Weston Sales, Inc.; McCain Foods Limited; McCain Foods USA, Inc.; J.R. Simplot Co.; Cavendish Farms Ltd; Cavendish Farms, Inc; National Potato Promotion Board d/b/a Potatoes USA, and Circana, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12795 (N.D. Ill., December 12, 2024) seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other relief as appropriate, based on violations of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. This is a price-fixing case against the four dominant processors of frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products sold in the United States. The Defendants collectively control 97 percent or more of the $68-billion-per-year frozen potato products market. Rather than competing, the Defendants used their extreme market power to leverage a temporary spike in input costs to impose lockstep price increases on their frozen potato products at supra-competitive levels, says the suit. As a result of Defendants' combination and conspiracy, frozen potato product prices in the United States have been artificially inflated through the "Class Period," from January 1, 2021, to the present, causing Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer damages, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Yoland Shegian d/b/a LA Shawarma operated a restaurant in North Hollywood, California. During the Class Period, the Plaintiff purchased Frozen Potato Products in California indirectly from one or more Defendants for its own business use in commercial food preparation. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is an American food processing company that is one of the world's largest producers and processors of frozen french fries, waffle fries, and other frozen potato products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Cialkowski, Esq. Ian F. McFarland, Esq. Zachary J. Freese, Esq. Giselle M. Webber, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED LLP 1100 IDS Center 80 S. 8th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com ian.mcfarland@zimmreed.com zachary.freese@zimmreed.com giselle.webber@zimmreed.com - and - Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP Two CityPlace Drive Second Floor St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Evelyn Riley, Esq. Daniel Cohen, Esq. Lissa Morgans, Esq. Cody McCracken, Esq. DaJonna Richardson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 2445 M St. NW Suite 740 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: evelyn@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com lmorgans@cuneolaw.com cmccracken@cuneolaw.com drichardson@cuneolaw.com - and - Sarah Sterling Aldridge, Esq. John W. "Don" Barrett, Esq. Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq. David McMullan, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095-0927 Telephone: (662) 834-9168 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com LAVENDER LINGERIE: Faces Agostini Suit Over Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- LUNIQUE AGOSTINI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Lavender Lingerie, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09504 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating 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. The said violations stem from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. Lavender Lingerie, LLC controls and operates Savagex.com, a commercial website that offers lingerie and intimate apparel for online sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com LEGION SECURITY: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA, Macdonald Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE MACDONALD, as an individual, and on the behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. LEGION SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-13209 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 24, 2024) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees worked in excess of 40 hours per week but the Defendant did not pay them overtime wages at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Defendant just paid 80 hours on each paycheck regardless of the Plaintiff working more than 80 hours in the bi-weekly pay period. Also, the Defendant never formally terminated Plaintiff's employment, but the Plaintiff has not been on the schedule since Sept. 28, 2024, says the suit. This lawsuit further arises under Illinois common law for Defendant's retaliatory termination of Plaintiff in violation of public policy; and under Illinois' Whistle Blower Act, 70 ILCS 174/15, for Defendant's retaliation following Plaintiff's report to the Department of Labor. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a security guard beginning on Feb. 11, 2024, until he was unlawfully terminated in Sept. 23, 2024. Legion Security provides armed/unarmed guards for any occasion.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (331) 272-1942 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com LOWE'S HOME: Raygoza Sues Over Misleading Sale Promotions --------------------------------------------------------- DIANA RAYGOZA, and NINA HARRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV103194 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., December 13, 2024) is a consumer protection action that seeks to remedy Defendants' unlawful and deceptive business practices with respect to misleading sale promotions advertised at their retail locations as limited time discounted offers that, in reality, never end. The complaint asserts violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California's Unfair Competition law. According to the complaint, throughout Lowe's' California retail locations, the Defendants prominently advertise limited time sales events for their home and kitchen appliances. These sales include large discounts ranging from hundreds of dollars off to over one thousand dollars off select appliances. The Defendants advertise these purported discounts in strike through font with a purported end date that never materializes. Instead, when the purported sale end date arrives, a new sale price and discount is displayed with an updated sale expiration date. As such, Defendants' appliances do not retail for the advertised regular price as a new sale immediately follows the preceding sale, says the suit. These fake limited sales seek to push consumers, including Plaintiffs, into finalizing a purchase without second guessing, comparison shopping, or considering any of Defendants' hidden terms and conditions any of which might have otherwise dissuade consumers from completing the purchase, the suit alleges. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a home improvement company that manufactures, markets, advertises, and/or sells various products including home and kitchen appliances.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brandon Brouillette, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-763 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: bbrouillette@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com LUXE BUILDER: Faces Hatfield Suit Over Latent Building Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY HATFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXE BUILDER GROUP INC., STEVE SUMNER, AND JOHN DOE #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2024-CP-1006218 (S.C. Com. Pl., Charleston Cty., December 17, 2024) is a class action arising from the Defendants' violation of Section 27-31-190 of the South Carolina Horizontal Property Regime Act. Plaintiff Hatfield is a citizen of Charleston County, South Carolina, and is an owner of a townhome located in The Madison at Hamlin Plantation. By virtue of property ownership in The Madison, Plaintiff Hatfield is a member of the Madison at Hamlin Plantation Townhome Association, Inc., has been a member of the Association at all times relevant hereto, and has ownership and membership rights relating thereto. This matter arises from the re-construction and/or repair of The Madison. At the time Defendants completed their work, The Madison contained latent building defects. The Plaintiffs have previously put Defendants on notice of one or more of the deficiencies. However, the Defendants have not rectified the problems and their repair attempts, if any, have been inadequate, are failing or have failed, notes the complaint. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violation of their legal duties, the Plaintiffs have been proximately damaged in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact and has had to incur reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for the retention of experts to determine the damage and the scope of work for repair, says the suit. Luxe Builder Group Inc. is a general contractor engaged in the business of constructing and/or repairing homes in Charleston County, South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin O'Toole Lucey, Esq. Joshua F. Evans, Esq. JUSTIN O'TOOLE LUCEY, P.A. 415 Mill Street Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 849-8400 E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com jevans@lucey-law.com LUXE EVENT: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Vohidjonov Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DILSHOD VOHIDJONOV, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LUXE EVENT RENTALS LLC, ABC CORPORATIONS 1-3, CHAIM TREITEL, SHERZOD TURDIEV, and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-2, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08504 (E.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) arises from the Defendants' unfair labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges, pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL that he and similarly situated employees of Defendants are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid wages (2) unpaid overtime (3) unpaid minimum wage (4) liquidated damages (5) interest and (6) attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, the Defendants allegedly filed fraudulent tax withholdings to the Internal Revenue Service for Plaintiff and similarly situated employees by paying other similarly situated employees without withholding proper Federal and State tax, social security, FICA, and employee withholding deductions for all wages paid to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 2021 to July 2024 to physically prepare and move furniture and other event items and fixtures from Defendants' warehouses and to deliver to the venues of events, assemble, setup, clean, and return the items back to Defendants' warehouses. Luxe Event Rentals LLC operates a warehouse located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emre Polat, Esq. Grace Hyun, Esq. EMRE POLAT, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 1420 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 480-4500 M.I. INDUSTRIES: Schroeder Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM SCHROEDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.I. INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a INSTINCT PET FOOD, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01734 (E.D. Mo., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated customers stored within its information systems following a data breach detected on October 16, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. M.I. Industries, Inc., doing business as Instinct Pet Food, is a manufacturer of natural dog and cat foods, headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com MARK CUBAN: Karnas Allowed to File Unredacted Reply Under Seal -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v. MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to file under seal. Judge Altman says that he finds good cause to allow the Plaintiffs to file the unredacted versions of their Reply to the Defendants' supplemental opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class issues, the deposition transcript of Harris Label, and supporting exhibits. The Plaintiffs may file under seal unredacted versions of their Reply to the Defendants' Supplemental Opposition to the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Issues, the Deposition Transcript of Harris Label, and Supporting Exhibits. These filings shall remain sealed until further order of the Court. Mark Cuban is an American businessman and television personality. He is the former principal owner and current minority owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the National Basketball Association, co-owner of 2929 Entertainment, and was one of the main "sharks" on the ABC reality television series Shark Tank. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kqJDfG at no extra charge.[CC] MARQUE OF BRANDS: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARQUE OF BRANDS AMERICAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09821 (S.D.N.Y., December 19, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://minetanbodyskin.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on November 24, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Invisible Glow Dark Hydrating Tan Gelly Self Tan Gel MineTan - MineTan USA from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, 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. Marque of Brands Americas, LLC operates the MineTan Body Skin online retail store, as well as the MineTan Body Skin interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. 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 MDL 2566: Plaintiff Seeks More Time to File Reply on Denial Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566-NMG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time of 14 days in which to respond to motion of Dustin Sparman and Vantage payments, LLC to deny class certification in Arizona member case until Jan. 9, 2025. The current due date for responding is Dec. 26, 2024. Given the holidays and other significant contemporaneous motion practice concerning class certification under the Court's schedule, Plaintiff requests the extension so as to prepare an appropriate response for the Court to the Vantage Motion, which requests substantial relief. No prior requests for extension have been made on the Vantage Motion. Counsel for Vantage consents to the Extension of Time. Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YzLMrY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Barile III, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: pbarile@ lowey.com MDL 3108: Sifeuntes Suit Consolidated in Customer Data Breach Row ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Change Healthcare, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3108, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers "Sifuentes v. Change Healthcare," C.A. No. 1:24−00850 (W.D. Mich.) to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Donovan W. Frank for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff had moved to vacate the order that conditionally transferred his action to MDL No. 3108 while Defendant Change Healthcare Inc. opposed the motion. The actions in the MDL arise from a February 2024 cyberattack on Change Healthcare's network, which exposed the private information of millions of individuals and severely disrupted the ability of physicians, pharmacies, and other healthcare providers to use Change Healthcare's digital platform to access insurance information, fill prescriptions, submit insurance claims, and receive payment for services provided to patients. Like plaintiffs in the MDL, the plaintiff in the Sifuentes action alleges that his personally identifiable and health insurance information were compromised in the data breach. The action thus falls squarely within the MDL's ambit, rules the panel. The Plaintiff argued, among other things, that transfer will cause him inconvenience and additional cost, and that he will "lose control" over litigation of his action. The panel opined that the Plaintiff's concern appears to rest on the belief that he will be required to participate in person in proceedings in the transferee court, but as "Section 1407 transfer is for pretrial proceedings only, there is usually no need for the parties and witnesses to travel to the transferee district for depositions or otherwise." In any event, in determining whether transfer is appropriate, we look to "the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation," ruled the panel. A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3108-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf MDL 3116: Relief/Reconsideration Move of Inmate Woes Suits Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: Lawrence L. Crawford Litigation," Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion for miscellaneous relief. Plaintiffs Lawrence L. Crawford, Alton Chisholm, Jeremiah Mackey, and Anthony Cook filed a motion for reconsideration of the panel's July 31, 2024 order denying centralization in the District of New Jersey. This is with regards to cases "American Alliance for Equal Rights v. Fearless Fund Management, LLC, et al.," C.A. No. 1:23−03424 (N.D. Ga.), "Crawford, et al. v. The City of Whitehall, et al.," C.A. No. 2:23−02962 (S.D. Ohio) and "Crawford, et al. v. The Pope, et al.," C.A. No. 2:24−00659 (E.D. Pa.). Three of the actions (including the potential tag-along action) concern asserted violations of the rights of Crawford and other inmates based on an alleged conspiracy in federal and state courts to conceal evidence and obstruct rulings in their cases, an alleged failure by South Carolina prisons to provide adequate medical care and safe prison conditions, alleged acts of racial discrimination by hundreds of defendants, and the policies of the Catholic church. Plaintiffs moved to recuse all "MDL Panel judges" from this docket alleging conspiracy "to prevent the filing of new and amended complaints that would have supported centralization and, further, that the panel judges "conspired to conceal" defendants' waiver of objections to centralization. The panel dismissed said move as "groundless." Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration primarily argues that it is warranted because new related actions support centralization and the complaints in those actions could not have been filed earlier because numerous judges, including the Panel judges, conspired to block the filing of the complaints and that the panel erred in declining to consider actions that have been dismissed because plaintiffs continue to pursue relief in the actions. However, the panel argues that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that such a change has occurred in this litigation as this is not based solely on the limited number of actions involved. A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3116-Order_Denying_Motion_for_Reconsideration-12-24.pdf MDL No. 3114: AT&T Data Privacy Suits Transferred to N.D. Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- In case "In re: AT&T Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfers five cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and one from the Central District of California, all to the Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Ada E. Brown for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiffs in moved to vacate the orders while defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC oppose the motions and support transfer. These putative class actions present common factual questions concerning an alleged data security breach announced by AT&T in March 2024 concerning the personal information of over 70 million former and current AT&T customers released on the dark web. These include how and when the breach occurred, AT&T's data security practices with respect to safeguarding personal information, the investigation into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and the nature of any alleged damages. In opposition to transfer, plaintiffs argue that their actions involve unique "injuries and damages" which will not need common discovery and transfer will inconvenience plaintiffs and deprive them of their choice of forum. The panel deemed these objections are unpersuasive as the alleged injuries are the same types of injuries alleged in the MDL. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification and expert witness issues and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The panel concluded that the Northern District of Texas is an appropriate transferee district because defendant AT&T Inc. has its headquarters in Dallas, Texas, where common witnesses and other evidence likely will be found. Most of the related actions are pending there, and defendants and many plaintiffs support this district as their first or second choice for the transferee venue. A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 transfer order is available at https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3114-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf MOM ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. MOM ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-09933 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://mommysbliss.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Dec. 19, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Baby Shower Gift Basket and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit says. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Knowles is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Mom Enterprises offers baby 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 MOMIN & MOMIN: Faces Guchait Class Action Lawsuit in D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Momin & Momin, PLLC. The case is captioned as Priyanko Guchait and Sanchita Dhara individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Momin & Momin, PLLC, Case No. 24-DCV-322363 (Tex. Dist., Oct. 21, 2024). Momin & Momin is a certified public accounting firm that serves individuals and small to mid-size businesses throughout Texas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. ELLZEY KHERKHER SANFORD MONTGOMERY LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd Ste 200 Houston, TX 77006-5438 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Crackers ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that two Wheat Thins consumers are suing Mondelez. Why: The plaintiffs claim the company deceptively markets its Wheat Thins as containing only whole grains. Where: The Wheat Thins class action was filed in an Illinois federal court. Mondelez falsely markets its Wheat Thins crackers as being "100% Whole Grain" despite including refined grains in the product's ingredients, a new class action lawsuit alleges. Plaintiffs Ivan Blanco and Kathryn Swiggum filed the class action complaint against Mondelez International Inc., Mondelez Global LLC and Nabisco Inc. on Dec. 23 in an Illinois federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. According to the Wheat Thins whole grain lawsuit, the companies misled customers about the contents of the Wheat Thins crackers due to the presence of cornstarch in the product. Cornstarch is a refined grain, and is listed as a primary ingredient in Wheat Thins, the plaintiffs state. Unlike whole grains, refined grains lack essential components such as bran and germ, which provide key nutrients like fiber, vitamins and protein, the lawsuit argues. According to the plaintiffs, this contradicts the prominent "100% Whole Grain" claim displayed across Wheat Thins packaging and marketing materials. "MDLZ's representation that all (or 100%) of the grain ingredients in Wheat Thins are whole grains is patently false and utterly misleading," the complaint says. The plaintiffs say this claim is a deliberate tactic to differentiate Wheat Thins in the competitive snack market and to justify higher prices. Plaintiffs claim Mondelez capitalized on false perception of product Mondelez has publicly acknowledged the benefits of whole grains, emphasizing their superior nutritional value compared to refined grains, the Wheat Thins whole grain lawsuit says. It alleges that the company capitalized on this perception while knowingly including refined grains in the product. "If Plaintiffs and other consumers had known the representation was false, they would not have purchased MDLZ's products or, alternatively, would have paid less for them," the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs also cite guidance from the FDA and the Whole Grains Council to support their claims. FDA guidelines specify that products labeled as "100% whole grain" should exclusively contain whole grain ingredients, the plaintiffs say. As a result, the plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in Illinois or Florida who bought Wheat Thins that were marketed as being "100% whole grain" between October 2018 and now. They are suing for violations of federal warranty and state consumer laws, and are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Meanwhile, in August, a New York woman slapped Mondelez with a class action lawsuit alleging it misled consumers into believing Nabisco Whole Grain Premium Saltine Crackers are predominantly made with whole grain flour when they are not. The Wheat Thins whole grain plaintiffs are represented by Daniel J. Biederman Jr. at the Law Office of Danny Biederman LLC, and Dave Fox, Joanna Fox and Courtney Vasquez of Fox Law APC. The Wheat Thins class action lawsuit is Ivan Blanco et al. v. Mondelez International Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-13193, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] MORGAN STANLEY: Settlement Objectors Can't Challenge Attorney Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as BRANDON HARVEY, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02835-WHO (N.D. Calif.), Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Matthew Lucadano and Tracy Chen's motion to vacate the attorney fees award, to deny further attorney fees and to order disgorgement of attorney fees already paid to counsel for named plaintiff under the terms of a settlement agreement. Lucadano and Chen were objectors and proposed intervenors to the settlement agreement t for which Judge Orrick granted final approval and that was affirmed on most material terms by the Ninth Circuit. All of the arguments raised by Lucadano and Chen were rejected except ones that led to a slight narrowing of the certified-for-settlement class. The settlement agreement is final and all initial and subsequent distributions have been paid to class members. Their motion is based on a temporary agreement that once the settlement became effective, Morgan Stanley would "walkaway" from a FINRA arbitration it had filed against Harvey, which the lawyers in this case did not disclose to the court, the class or them. Lucadano and Chen contend that this was an undisclosed conflict requiring the disgorgement of fees. Harvey and Morgan Stanley respond with several substantive arguments that have significant merit: (1) Lucadano and Chen are precluded by stipulation from challenging the payments of attorney fees to Harvey's counsel; (2) Lucadano and Chen were not entitled to receive a copy of the MOU with the walkaway in the first place; and (3) Lucadano and Chen cannot seek relief under Rule 60(b) or Rule 60(d)(3). Judge Orrick concluded that even if the existence of the walkaway provision temporarily created a conflict, any such conflict was resolved by the settlement agreement between Harvey and Morgan Stanley, which he had approved. The settlement agreement included an integration clause, meaning that no prior agreements, understandings, or representations were enforceable after the settlement was executed. He found that the brief period during which the walkaway provision may have been in effect did not affect the relief available to the class or create a conflict substantial enough to warrant the relief sought by Lucadano and Chen. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uptRFm MOUNT SINAI: Confidentiality Order Entered in Cooper, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issues a Confidentiality Order in the case captioned as RONDA COOPER, CORAL FRASER, DAVID GIL TIN, and GILBERT MANDA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNT SINAI HEAL TH SYSTEM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1 :23-cv-09483 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.). The parties to said Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement have agreed to the terms of the Order. The Order will govern discovery of electronically stored information ("ESI") in the case as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other applicable orders and rules. All materials produced or adduced in the course of discovery shall be subject to the Order concerning Confidential Information. The Order is subject to the Local Rules of this District and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on matters of procedure and calculation of time periods. As used in the Order, "Confidential Information" means information designated as "CONFIDENTIAL-SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT" by the Designating Party that falls within one or more of the following categories: a. information prohibited from transfer or disclosure by statute, including but not limited to the Healthcare Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1320d, et seq. and the regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services under HIPAA; b. information that reveals trade secrets or confidential or proprietary financial information that the Designating Party has maintained as confidential or is required by agreement to be maintained as confidential; c. confidential medical information, personal identity information, and personally identifiable information concerning any individual; d. income tax returns (including attached schedules and forms), W-2 forms, and 1099 forms; and e. personnel or employment records of a person who is not a party to the case. Unless all parties agree on the record at the time the deposition testimony is taken, all deposition testimony taken in the case will be treated as Confidential Information until the expiration of the following: No later than the 14th day after the transcript is delivered to any party or the witness, and in no event later than 60 days after the testimony was given. Within this time period, a party may serve a Notice of Designation to all patties of record as to specific portions of the testimony that are designated Confidential Information, and thereafter, only those portions identified in the Notice of Designation will be protected by the terms of this Order. The failure to serve a timely Notice of Designation will waive any designation of testimony taken in that deposition as Confidential Information, unless otherwise ordered by the Court or otherwise agreed upon by the parties. A party challenging the designation of Confidential Information must do so in good faith and must begin the process by conferring directly with counsel for the Designating Party. The Designating Party must respond to the challenge within five business days. Until the Court rules on the challenge, all parties will continue to treat the materials as Confidential Information under the terms of this Order. The Order will be subject to modification by the Court on its own initiative or on motion of a party or any other person with standing concerning the subject matter. It will take effect when entered and will be binding upon all counsel of record and their law firms, the parties, and persons made subject to the Order by its terms. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jeDocB from PacerMonitor.com. MYLAN NV: Loses Bid for Partial Judgment on Pleadings in KPH Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a/k/a KINNEY DRUGS, INC., individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, FWK HOLDINGS, LLC, and CÉSAR CASTILLO LLC, Plaintiffs, v. MYLAN N.V., MYLAN SPECIALTY L.P., and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 20-2065-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.). EpiPen is "a disposable, prefilled, FDA-approved epinephrine auto injector" that delivers epinephrine to treat severe allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis. Between 2013 and 2016, sales of EpiPens in the United States generated more than $1 billion annually. Defendants market, sell, and distribute EpiPens in the United States. Plaintiffs are business entities who purchased EpiPens directly from defendants. The Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in an anticompetitive conspiracy to delay generic competition for EpiPens. Plaintiffs claim that on April 26, 2012, defendants entered unlawful agreements with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Under these agreements, Teva agreed to delay the launch of its generic EpiPen until June 22, 2015, pending FDA approval, and to settle related patent litigation. In return, defendants agreed to delay Mylan’s generic version of Teva's drug Nuvigil until June 1, 2016, and to settle patent litigation concerning Mylan's ANDA for Nuvigil. According to plaintiffs' allegations, had defendants not entered these agreements with Teva, a generic EpiPen would have entered the EAI market around March 2014. And, after entry of a generic EpiPen, plaintiffs "and other direct purchasers of EpiPens would have been able to pay significantly lower prices than they were forced to pay because of [d]efandants' unlawful and anticompetitive conduct to delay generic entry." Plaintiffs' lawsuit seeks to recover "overcharge damages" that plaintiffs and putative class members purportedly paid for EpiPens and that defendants allegedly caused with their unlawful, anticompetitive, and exclusionary conduct. The FAC asserts two claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act premised on this generic delay theory: (1) an unlawful contract, combination, or conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade violating 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1; and (2) an unlawful conspiracy to monopolize violating 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2. Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim. Part of that motion argued that plaintiffs failed to "plausibly allege a reverse payment settlement." Defendants argued that plaintiffs "allege no facts showing the Nuvigil settlement constituted a 'large' or 'unjustified' payment to Teva." The court disagreed. The court rejected defendants' argument that plaintiffs didn't allege plausibly a reverse payment, explaining that the economic substance -- not form -- of the payment was relevant. And the court concluded that "a reasonable factfinder reasonably could find or infer that the parties entered an unlawful reverse payment settlement based on plaintiffs' allegations." Now, defendants have filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants' motion relies almost entirely on the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. AbbVie Inc., 42 F.4th 709 (7th Cir. 2022). The crux of defendants' position is that "one entry-date-only settlement" in exchange "for another entry-date-only settlement" cannot constitute an unlawful reverse payment. Judge Crabtree rejected defendants' argument that the FAC fails to allege a plausible antitrust claim. He found the Seventh Circuit's decision in AbbVie legally and factually distinct from this case and unpersuasive. The court determined that plaintiffs plausibly alleged defendants made a large, unjustified payment to maintain their EpiPen monopoly. Citing Actavis and its subsequent cases, the court ruled that plaintiffs should proceed to discovery and denied defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GPlJaR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Cheatham Appeals Final OK of Gibson Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------------- BENNY D. CHEATHAM, et al., objectors, are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Don Gibson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00788-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this class action against the Defendants for their alleged engagement in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. On Oct. 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion and suggestions in support of final approval of settlements with the Defendants, which Judge Stephen R. Bough granted on Nov. 4, 2024. Furthermore, Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs as set forth in the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards was granted and will be paid in accordance with the settlement agreements. The appellate case is captioned Don Gibson, et al. v. Benny Cheatham, et al., Case No. 24-3564, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2024. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DON GIBSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN & GODFREY 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 - and - Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS & BERMAN 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956A Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 - and - Robert Abraham Braun, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN West Tower, Suite 800 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 - and - Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Michael Anthony Williams, Esq. WILLIANS & DIRKS 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 (816) 945-7135 - and - Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. SUSMAN & GODFREY One Manhattan, W., Floor 50 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 - and - Michael S. Ketchmark, Esq. Scott A. McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK & MCCREIGHT 11161 Overbrook Road, Suite 210 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266-4500 Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al. are represented by: Eric Fanchiang, Esq. Daniel Sasse, Esq. Chahira Solh, Esq. CROWELL & MORING 3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 798-1338 (949) 263-8400 - and - MaryAnn T. Almeida, Esq. Robert J. Maguire, Esq. Emily Parsons, Esq. DAVIS & WRIGHT 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 757-8187 (206) 757-8094 (206) 622-3150 - and - Bryon Patrick Becker, Esq. Karen L. Dunn, Esq. Martha Goodman, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. PAUL & WEISS 2001 K. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 - and - Brian J. Madden, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL 4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 701-1132 - and - Eyitayo St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq. PAUL & WEISS 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 - and - Gerald A. Stein, Esq. DAVIS & WRIGHT 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 402-4095 Objectors-Appellants BENNY D. CHEATHAM, et al. are represented by: Patrick Eugene Knie, Esq. Mathew W. Shealy, Esq. KNIE & SHEALY P.O. Box 5159 250 Magnolia Street Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 582-5118 - and - Mitch Slade, Esq. SLADE LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 1007 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Telephone: (864) 582-4212 NEW YORK, NY: Court Okays Settlement in Wynne FLSA Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein 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 WILLIS WYNNE, et al., Plaintiffs, -v.- CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Case No. 23 Civ. 9955 (DEH) (GWG). The plaintiffs in this case, numbering 212 individuals, filed this action on November 10, 2023, raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 201 et seq., relating to their employment by the City of New York. In brief, plaintiffs alleged that the defendant failed to compensate them for work performed before and/or after the plaintiffs' scheduled shifts. Judge Gorenstein held a settlement conference with the parties on October 28, 2024. The parties reached a settlement as a result of the conference and now seek approval of their proposed settlement. The settlement provides that the City will pay a total of $2,900,000.00 to settle all claims. This consists of (1) $1,371,000.00 in backpay and (2) $1,529,000.00 constituting liquidated damages, Service Awards, statutory attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses. The Court finds the amount of the settlement to be reasonable. It has examined the non-monetary terms of the settlement agreement and finds none that cast any significant burden on plaintiffs. The settlement provides that three plaintiffs will be paid $3000 each as a service award. These service awards amount to only 0.3% of the total settlement amount and the Court finds them to be reasonable. The terms of the settlement provide for plaintiffs' counsel to be reimbursed for $17,630.00 in expenses, which includes expert witness fees, and to be paid $960,790.00 in attorneys' fees, which represents one-third of the amount recovered exclusive of costs. Each of the plaintiffs and their attorneys agreed in advance of the settlement that the attorneys would be entitled to one-third of any recovery as attorneys' fees no matter the outcome of the lawsuit. The purpose of a contractual contingency fee arrangement is to ensure recovery for an attorney regardless of the number of hours actually expended by the attorney. The Court finds that the contingent fee arrangement was fair to plaintiffs and reasonable at the time it was made. Accordingly, the Court approves the attorneys' fees in the settlement agreement because they are consistent with the retainer agreement agreed to by plaintiffs. Finally, as to the costs, an attorney can recover "those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred and ordinarily charged to their clients." Plaintiffs' attorneys seek $17,630.00 in litigation expenses, including copying, court costs, mailing costs and "Consultant Services," which refers to the fees of an expert who performed data analysis. The Court finds it reasonable that these costs be reimbursed. The application to approve the settlement is granted. This action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs except as may be stated in the settlement agreement. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Any pending motions are moot. The Clerk is requested to close this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DQiOm2 NEW YORK, NY: St. Kitt Sues Over Disability Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------- RASHEEN ST. KITT v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Case No. 1:24-cv-07361-LB (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 21, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for disability discrimination and/or retaliation. The suit contends that the Defendant has a custom, policy, and/or practice of requiring individuals with disabilities to wait approximately 6-12 months before Defendant considers them for reassignment. This custom, policy, and/or practice violates the New York City Human Rights Law's requirement. The Plaintiff suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, and he sought a reasonable accommodation for his condition in November 2021. Instead of working expeditiously to try to accommodate Mr. St. Kitt so that he could meaningfully achieve equal employment opportunities, the Defendant retaliated against him by requiring him to submit to serial, needless medical examinations over a six-month period, the suit alleges. The Defendant further discriminated against Mr. St. Kitt by denying him a reasonable accommodation, terminating him, and then failing to rehire him when a suitable position became available shortly after he was terminated. The NYCTA was inconvenienced by Mr. St. Kitt's disabilities, so it terminated him and then refused to rehire him, all to avoid having to provide him with reasonable accommodations in the future, in clear violation of federal, New York State, and local laws. In specific, Defendant's actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the NYCHRL, the suit asserts. Mr. St. Kitt was diagnosed with MS in 2010. On Feb. 29, 2016, Mr. St. Kitt began working for the NYCTA as a subway conductor. His duties included monitoring train cars, opening and closing doors, announcing train arrivals and departures, and operating the automatic announcement system. NYCTA was and is a quasi-department, agency, and/or subdivision of The State of New York, charged with providing transportation services to residents of New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Audain, Esq. Symone Yancey, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP Telephone: (212) 847-8315 90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 E-mail: raudain@gslawny.com syancey@gslawny.com NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Class Action Over False Financial Prospects ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs investors that a class action was filed on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Nextracker Inc. (NASDAQ: NXT) common stock between February 1, 2024 and August 1, 2024. Nextracker provides software that enables solar panels to follow the sun's movement across the sky and related products and services. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Nextracker Inc. (NXT) Misled Investors Regarding the Company's Financial Prospects According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose: (a) that the impact of project delays on Nextracker's business, financial results, and prospects was far more severe than represented to investors; (b) that permitting and interconnection delays had materially impaired Nextracker's ability to convert backlog into revenue at historical conversion rates; (c) that Nextracker had been unable to offset the negative impact from project delays through increased client demand and the purported ability to pull forward its other projects in the manner represented by defendants; and (d) that Nextracker did not possess the competitive advantages which purportedly shielded it from industry-wide headwinds or the ability to effectively offset the adverse effects of project delays as claimed by defendants. On August 1, 2024, Nextracker announced disappointing financial results for the first fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2024. On this news, the price of Nextracker common stock dropped from $46.83 per shares when the market closed on August 1, 2024, to $39.81 per share when the market closed on August 5, 2024. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Nextracker Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must submit their application to the court by February 25, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. For more information, click here. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. Contact us to learn more: Aaron Dumas, Jr. (800) 350-6003 adumas@robbinsllp.commailto:llevi@robbinsllp.com About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over $1 billion for shareholders. To be notified if a class action against Nextracker Inc. settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] NEXTRACKER INC: Faces Weber Suit Over Drop of Common Stock's Price ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIEL WEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXTRACKER INC., DANIEL SHUGAR, DAVID BENNETT, HOWARD WENGER, and CHARLES BOYNTON, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-09467 (N.D. Cal., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Nextracker's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade Nextracker common stock at artificially inflated prices between February 1, 2024, and August 1, 2024. During the Class Period, the Defendants continued to minimize the impact of project delays on Nextracker's business, claiming that the delays were isolated to individual projects and that the company was simply better at managing project timelines than its competitors and that favorable financial and operating trends purportedly more than offset any adverse effects. Unbeknownst to investors, as the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, these assurances were materially false and misleading when made. In reality, Nextracker was suffering the negative effects of panel availability and interconnection and permitting delays to a far greater extent than previously disclosed, which had negatively and materially impacted the company's ability to convert its backlog to revenue in line with its historical conversion rates. When the truth emerged, the price of Nextracker common stock dropped from $46.83 per share when the market closed on August 1, 2024, to $39.81 per share when the market closed on August 5, 2024, a 15 percent decline on abnormally high volume over two trading days. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of the company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class have suffered significant damages, the suit alleges. Nextracker, Inc. is a software company headquartered in Fremont, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Vicki Multer Diamond, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com vdiamond@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Email: frankj@johnsonfistel.com NISSAN NORTH: Parties Must File Status Update by Feb. 13 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re: Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-00843 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge William Campbell, Jr. entered an order that the parties shall file a joint status update no later than Feb. 13, 2025. This case was stayed and administratively closed pending the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on Defendant's appeal of the class certification ruling. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on Nov. 22, 2024, and the mandate has issued. Pursuant to that decision, the case was remanded for further proceedings. The Court will hold a telephone status conference on Feb. 20, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. The parties are directed to dial 855-244-8681 and enter Access Code 2310 964 0001 to be connected to the call. In advance of the status conference, lead counsel for the parties shall meet and confer regarding class certification, specifically, whether an agreement can be reached, the need for additional briefing, and a proposed schedule. Nissan is the North American headquarters, and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Corporation of Japan. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iV3mWI at no extra charge.[CC] OCEANBLUE OMEGA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OCEANBLUE OMEGA LLC and OCEANBLUE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09866 (S.D.N.Y., December 20, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.oceanblueomega.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on December 19, 2024, in an attempt to purchase Omega-3 2100 with Vitamin D3 from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Oceanblue Omega LLC operates the OceanBlue Omega online retail store, as well as the OceanBlue Omega interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. 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 OPW FUELING: Class Certification Filing Extension Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OVIS MATAMOROS CANALES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a 14-day extension of time for: -- the Defendant to file a Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). -- Court Authorized Notice to be Issued under 29 U.S.C. section 216(B). -- Class Certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. -- Appointment of Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(G). The Defendant's deadline to file a response is Dec. 30, 2024. Due to the holidays and pre-planned family commitments, Defendant requests that the deadline to file a response be extended to Jan. 13, 2025. Similarly, given Defendant's original Dec. 30, 2024, deadline to respond to Plaintiff's motion, Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply is Jan. 13, 2025. Given the holidays, family travel, and other pressing deadlines, the Plaintiff requests two weeks up to and including Feb. 10, 2025, to file his reply in support of his motion for conditional/class certification. This motion is made in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. OPW designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5uO0U at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (919) 741-8693 Facsimile: (919) 869-1853 E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: David I. Klass, Esq. Nicholas S. Hulse, Esq. Sharon Y. Suh, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 227 West Trade Street, Suite 2020 Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (704) 334-4565 Facsimile: (704) 334-9774 E-mail: dklass@fisherphillips.com nhulse@fisherphillips.com ssuh@fisherphillips.com ORACLE AMERICA: Atty's. Fees Order in Katz-Lacabe Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH FELDMAN, objector, is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and Plaintiff service awards in the lawsuit entitled Michael Katz-Lacabe, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Oracle America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04792-RS, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class action complaint seeks to enforce the Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy, redress and compensation for the financial, dignitary, reputational, and relational harms Oracle has caused, and obtain a ruling that Oracle's conduct is unlawful and therefore must stop. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's business practices amounted to a deliberate and purposeful surveillance of the general population via digital and online existence. In the course of functioning as a worldwide data broker, Oracle has created a network that tracks in real-time and records indefinitely the personal information of hundreds of millions of people. Oracle sells this detailed personal information to third parties, either directly, or through its "ID Graph" and other related products and services derived from this data without the Plaintiffs' consent. On Aug. 28, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and Plaintiff service awards, which Judge Richard Seeborg granted on Nov. 15, 2024. The Court ordered as follows: (1) Class Counsel is awarded 25 percent of the total Settlement Fund, or $28.75 million, in attorneys' fees and $211,350.52 in expenses; (2) each of the two Settlement Class Representatives is awarded $10,000 in service awards; and (3) these amounts are warranted and reasonable for the reasons set forth in the moving papers, at the Fairness Hearing, and the reasons stated in the order. The appellate case is captioned Katz-Lacabe, et al. v. Oracle America, Inc., Case No. 24-7648, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 19, 2024. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 24, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on December 30, 2024; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on January 30, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 7, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees MICHAEL KATZ-LACABE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jalle Dafa, Esq. John Donovan Maher, Esq. Michael Sobol, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendant-Appellee ORACLE AMERICA, INC. is represented by: Tiffany Cheung, Esq. Christin J. Hill, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 425 Market Street, 32nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 - and - Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Objector-Appellant SARAH FELDMAN is represented by: Kendrick Jan, Esq. KENDRICK JAN, APC 225 Broadway, Suite 2220 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq. 18 Damon Street Wayland, MA 01778 OVERHERE LIMITED: Mena Slams Sale of Unregistered Memecoin ---------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS RODRIGUEZ MENA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ALEX LARSON SCHULTZ, OVERHERE LIMITED, CLINTON SO, AND TUAH THE MOON FOUNDATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08695 (E.D.N.Y., December 20, 2024) is a class action arising from the unlawful promotion and sale of the Hawk Tuah cryptocurrency memecoin, known as the "$HAWK" token, which Defendants offered and sold to the public without proper registration in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. According to the complaint, the Defendants leveraged the extensive social media following of Hailey Welch, a prominent social media personality known as the "Hawk Tuah Girl," to market the Token as a groundbreaking cryptocurrency project. Through aggressive promotional campaigns and promises of future growth, the Defendants created a speculative frenzy that caused the Token's market value to spike shortly after launch, reaching a significant market capitalization. The marketing campaign, led by Defendants, created a reasonable expectation of profits among investors through statements like "Tuah to the Moon" and promises of redefining the crypto space. The Token's success depended entirely on the entrepreneurial and managerial efforts of Welch and her project team, with investors playing no active role in its development or adoption. Despite these clear indications of its status as a security, the $HAWK Token was not registered by Defendants, the suit asserts. overHere Limited s a web developer that served as a launchpad for $HAWK and promoted the project.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chet B. Waldman, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Terrence Zhang, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 759-4600 E-mail: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com tzhang@wolfpopper.com - and - Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114 New York, NY 10036 E-mail: max@burwick.law PACIFIC MARKET: Refuses to Refund Recalled Mugs, Scherzi Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIELLE SCHERZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC d/b/a/ PMI WORDLWIDE, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02151 (W.D. Wash., December 27, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act and the New York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's design, production, and distribution of defective stainless steel travel mugs. On December 12, 2024, the Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall of over 2.6 million stainless steel travel mugs spanning eleven different product numbers. Consumers were warned to immediately stop using the recalled travel mugs because the mug's lid threads can shrink when exposed to heat and torque, causing the lid to detach during use, resulting in a burn hazard. However, the Defendant refused to give customers any money back for these defective products. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages, says the suit. Pacific Market International, LLC, d/b/a PMI Worldwide, is a manufacturer of drinkware and cookware, with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Wyatt, Esq. WYATT GRONSKI PLLC 371 NE Gilman Blvd., Suite 260 Issaquah, WA 98027 Telephone: (425) 395-7784 Email: todd@wdlawgroup.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7000 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Content Creators Sue Over Affiliate Commissions ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Hale, writing for Tubefilter, Inc., reports that YouTuber MegaLag uploaded his bombshell Honey expose accusing the coupon-finding browser extension of snatching content creators' commissions by replacing their affiliate links with its own at the very last second before checkout. Now, creator lawyer LegalEagle is helping spearhead a class action lawsuit against Honey's owner PayPal, with YouTubers Sam Denby (aka Wendover Productions) and Ali Spagnola as the principal plaintiffs. PayPal acquired Honey for $4 billion in 2020, when the extension was earning around $100 million a year in revenue. LegalEagle (aka Devin Stone) tells Tubefilter that if MegaLag's allegations against Honey are accurate, "there is basically an adpocalypse going on all day every day and creators had absolutely no idea." And that underground adpocalypse affects all creators -- not only those who rely on affiliate commissions. Obviously the creators who may have had their affiliate links obliterated during the checkout process are among the most financially impacted. They lost money from sales they generated and traffic registration from their fans buying products they recommended. They did the work and didn't get paid. Maybe some lost sponsorships, if their ad spots didn't appear to convert to sales as well as expected. But even creators who don't do affiliate marketing or sponsorships can still suffer from this alleged business practice, Stone argues. "It's possible that every advertiser in the world might think their advertising on social media platforms is less effective, if Honey is indeed coming in at the last second and taking the attribution that would've gone to the creator," Stone says. "Creators rely on advertising, whether directly or indirectly. In some ways it's a miracle that we are allowed to post our videos on YouTube for free, or our pictures on Instagram, or distribute our podcasts, and all of that is free. That's because these platforms rely on advertising. "Even if you're not using affiliate links, it's our contention that if you're relying on the platforms hosting your content for free, if you're relying on advertising revenue, all of that is built on the presumption that advertisers know how effective their advertising is," he adds. "That's why attribution is so important." The lawsuit, filed Dec. 29 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California—San Jose, seeks two things: -- First, monetary damages for potential revenue that should have gone to creators "but otherwise was intercepted by Honey." -- And, second, an injunction that will prevent Honey from engaging in these alleged business practices in the future. Both damages and injunction are equally important, Stone says, and he's working with a team of half a dozen other attorneys across Washington D.C., California, and the Midwest in hopes of obtaining them. He hopes that if a judge rules in plaintiffs' favor, other companies could be investigated for allegedly utilizing a similar affiliation-snatching business model. He tells Tubefilter that based on research for the Honey case, he thinks other potential offending companies could include Karma, Capital One Shopping, and Pie, which was created this year by Honey co-founder Ryan Hudson. "I was just furious after watching MegaLag's video, and I'm lucky to be in a position where I can actually do something about it," Stone says. He adds that candidate situations for class action lawsuits are rare, and says that regular consumers who installed the Honey extension to find deals while e-shopping will have a tough time pursuing class action litigation, because Honey has a class action waiver and forced arbitration (a measure that prevents customers with complaints from being able to take those complaints to court) baked into its TOS. "But I actually think this is the perfect opportunity for a class action, because there are so many creators and influencers who have been potentially harmed by these actions," Stone says. Two of those creators are the suit's plaintiffs. Both edutainment creator Denby and musician/comedian Spagnola have been potentially affected by alleged affiliation link sniping and the underground adpocalypse. (It's worth noting neither creator has worked with Honey in an official capacity; we're not sure yet if creators who did have sponsorship agreements with Honey also had class action waivers and/or forced arbitration baked into their contracts, and thus might be ineligible for reparations from this suit.) "Sam Denby is one of the most savvy creators on the planet," Stone says. "He understands the creator economy better than anyone that I know, and I can't think of a creator who is better positioned to represent the world of creators than he is." As for Spagnola, she is "also an incredibly savvy creator, and someone who relies on affiliate income to make ends meet," he says. "It's important to have class representatives who are not only literally representatives of the class, but also someone who is unassailably doing things for the right reason, and doing things well," he says. "Sam and Ali represent that." Ultimately, Stone believes Honey may have stolen billions of dollars from creators in the five years since it was acquired by PayPal. "We look forward to conducting discovery to find out the exact numbers," he says. He encourages "creators who think or know that Honey has prevented them from making money via affiliate links or attribution" to reach out to honeycase@eagleteam.law. [GN] PAYPAL INC: Wendover Sues Over Redirection of Content Creators' Pay ------------------------------------------------------------------- WENDOVER PRODUCTIONS, LLC and Businessing, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-09470 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for intentional interference with contractual relations and prospective economic relations and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged scheme to unlawfully supplant affiliate links from content creators with its own affiliate links via Honey, a browser extension, thereby redirecting commission or tracking on those affiliate links to the Defendant. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated content creators suffered damages. Wendover Productions, LLC is content creator based in Colorado. Businessing, LLC is a content creator based in Los Angeles, California. PayPal, Inc. is a financial technology company headquartered in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law - and - Josh Sanford, Esq. Jarrett Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Email: jsanford@eksm.com jellzey@eksm.com - and - Devin J. Stone, Esq. EAGLE TEAM LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 5038 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (833) 507-8326 Email: devin@eagleteam.law PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Dec. 19, 2025 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ECHOTA C. WOLFCLAN and ZAKERY BONDS, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, v. PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-05399-TSZ-SKV (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge S. Kate Vaughan entered an order granting the parties’ stipulated motion to extend case schedule as follows: Event New Date Disclosure of expert testimony under Aug. 29, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2): Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony Sept. 30, 2025 under FRCP 26(a)(2): All motions related to discovery must be Oct. 31, 2025 filed by this date and noted for consideration no earlier than 21 days thereafter: All discovery must be completed by this date: Nov. 21, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Dec. 19, 2025 any motions related to other class certification issues, and any motions for summary judgment relating to individual claims or issues must be filed by this date: Defendants' opposition to Plaintiffs' Jan. 19, 2026 motion for class certification, and any responses to motions related to other class certification issues or to motions for summary judgment relating to individual claims or issues must be filed by this date: A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jxN2FE at no extra charge.[CC] PINNACLE PROPANE: Class Action Settlement in Fitton Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as AMANDA FITTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PINNACLE PROPANE, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01559-B (N.D. Tex.), Hon. Judge Jane Boyle entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement. -- The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Raina Borrelli of the law firm Strauss Borrelli PLLC as Settlement Class Counsel. -- The Court grants Settlement Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $163,333.33 in fees and $18,668.33 in reasonable costs and expenses. -- Lastly, the Court finds Class Counsel's costs and expenses of $18,668.33 reasonable. -- Accordingly, the Court grants Settlement Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amount of $163,333.33 for fees and $18,668.33 for reasonable costs and expenses. Pinnacle Propane is a supplier and distributor of LPG in the U.S. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=voIvSe at no extra charge.[CC] PLEX INC: Refuses to Pay Arbitration Filing Fees, Tsuya Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Oliver Tsuya, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff vs. PLEX, INC. and PLEX GMBH, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-09078 (N.D. Cal., December 16, 2024) is an action to address Plex's refusal to pay arbitration filing fees invoiced by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. pursuant to the arbitration rules specifically chosen by Plex in an arbitration agreement that it drafted and imposed on all Plex users, including Plaintiff. The Defendants operate a media platform that combines user-generated content with ad-supported streaming services, allowing users to organize and access personal media libraries alongside thousands of prerecorded movies and TV shows. Plex unlawfully spies on its users, collecting and sharing information about their viewing habits, the suit contends. According to Plex's Terms of Service, revised June 6, 2023, effective when Plaintiff's claims accrued and under which Plaintiff sought to initiate arbitration, any disputes Plaintiff has with Plex must be brought in arbitration administered by Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services. However, instead of fulfilling its contractual duties by accepting JAMS' decision and paying the filing fees JAMS invoiced, Plex simply refused to pay, making it so the arbitration proceedings cannot move forward. This situation persists to this day, leaving Plaintiff and the proposed classes without a pathway to advance the arbitrations they are contractually entitled to pursue, and no way to hold Plex accountable for its unlawful conduct, the suit asserts. Plex, Inc. operates as an entertainment company. The Company provides a streaming media platform where users can enjoy free movies and TV shows.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Janove, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 500 7th Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 347-3940 E-mail: raphael@janove.law - and - Liana Vitale, Esq. JANOVE PLLC 979 Osos St., Ste. A5 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 505-9550 E-mail: liana@janove.law POLYGLASS USA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANILKA CASTRO, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. POLYGLASS USA INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01059-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline for submitting motions for Rule 23 Class Certification and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) conditional certification until March 31, 2025. The Plaintiff Janilka Castro, who has filed this putative class and collective action lawsuit, is represented by Mark Gottesfeld and Peter Winebrake from Winebrake & Santillo, LLC. The Defendant Polyglass USA Inc. is represented by Kieran Casey, Esq. of Rosenn, Jenkins, & Greenwald, LLP. On Aug. 16, 2024, this Court issued a Scheduling Order which referred this matter to Magistrate Judge William Arbuckle for purposes of scheduling a Settlement Conference, and set a deadline of January 10, 2025, for the submission of Motions for Rule 23 Class Certification and FLSA Conditional Certification. In this class/collective lawsuit, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") and the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay her and other hourly employees overtime wages based on regular rates that included extra and non-discretionary payments. Judge Arbuckle has scheduled the parties to have a telephone status conference on January 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. See Doc. 27. If Defendant provides the outstanding requested materials and data, then the parties will ask Judge Arbuckle to reschedule the Settlement Conference. Polyglass manufactures bitumen and synthetic waterproofing membranes. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=R3SQEm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Kieran M. Casey, Esq. ROSENN, JENKINS, & GREENWALD, LLP Cross Creek Pointe 1065 Highway 315, Suite 200 Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702 Telephone: (570) 826-5678 E-mail: kcasey@rjglaw.com PURISM SPC: Fails to Comply With Refund Obligations, Thier Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW THIER, an individual, and TRAVIS DEITZ, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PURISM, SPC, a Washington Social Purpose Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-09002 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiff and similarly situated purchasers of the Librem 5 smartphone seeking actual damages from the Defendant for breach of contract arising from its failure to comply with refund policies. In 2017, Purism began taking pre-orders for its proposed Librem 5 smartphone. Purism offered its pre-order customers a rock-solid refund policy that they could get their money back for any reason if they changed their minds and requested a refund prior to the time that Purism shipped their Librem 5 phone. It was not until September 24, 2019, Purism announced that the first Librem 5s had started shipping to pre-order customers. As the years passed, customers that failed to receive their Librem 5 phones began cancelling their pre-orders and invoking Purism's refund policy to demand their monies back. When it received these requests, Purism followed a set playbook. First, it would acknowledge the obligation to provide a refund but would say that refunds would be processed when all pre-order shipments to other customers had occurred. After years of offering that excuse, Purism would abruptly state that no refunds would be made, the suit says. The Defendant breached the terms of this contract by failing to comply with its refund obligations under the contract, asserts the complaint. As a result of Defendant's breach of its contract, the Plaintiffs and the Classes have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, it adds. Purism SPC is a technology company based in the San Francisco Bay Area, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dhaivat H. Shah, Esq. David I. Siegel, Esq. Erin M. Adrian, Esq. GRELLAS SHAH LLP 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 280 Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone: (408) 255-6310 Facsimile: (408) 255-6350 E-mail: ds@grellas.com dsiegel@grellas.com ema@grellas.com PYTHON LEADS: Plaintiff Must Face Counterclaims in TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims of Python Leads, LLC in the case captioned as NELSON ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS. ARAGON ADVERTISING, LLC and PYTHON LEADS, LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO, 4:23-cv-3407 (S.D. Tex.). Python's motion to strike is denied as moot. Plaintiff files a class action against Python and Aragon Advertising, LLC, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for unconsented phone and text solicitations. Plaintiff claims that Aragon purchased consumer contact and demographic information from lead generators like Python, using it for mass telemarketing with pre-recorded voices to individuals who did not consent, had no ongoing business relationships with Defendants, and had registered their numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry. Plaintiff specifically alleges that despite registering his phone number on the National Do Not Call Registry in 2008, he received unsolicited telemarketing calls from Defendants at least 44 times over a 12-month period. Defendants present a different narrative, asserting in their counterclaims that Plaintiff or his designee visited a website, https://securemedicareenrollment.com, and gave express consent for Defendants to call his phone number, (281) XXX-0020. They further claim that Plaintiff, using the false name "Sam Smith," intentionally prompted the calls and pretended to be interested in their products, inflating the call count to later seek a higher settlement for his allegedly manufactured TCPA claim. Defendants argue that Plaintiff knowingly failed to opt out after consenting to the calls, causing Defendants to incur employee time, attorney's fees, and court costs. To recover these alleged damages, Defendants bring counterclaims for common-law fraud and fraud by nondisclosure. Plaintiff moves to dismiss the counterclaims for three reasons: (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted; and (3) the counterclaims violate the Texas Citizens Participation Act. Plaintiff argues that the Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction over Python's counterclaims. Plaintiff is correct that neither federal-question jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction exists over Python's counterclaims because it does not allege federal causes of action or any specific amount-in-controversy, let alone one that exceeds $75,000. Thus, the question becomes whether the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The key question is whether Python's counterclaims are so related to Plaintiff's TCPA claims that they "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact." In this case, Plaintiff's original claims and Python's counterclaims share a "common nucleus of operative facts," and thus, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges that Python made or caused to be made numerous telemarketing calls to him in violation of TCPA without his express consent. Python, on the other hand, alleges that Plaintiff did provide his express consent, albeit fraudulently. The facts underlying those claims -- whether Plaintiff did provide the requisite consent -- are clearly related and form a common nucleus. Indeed, consent is a valid defense against both of Plaintiff's claims. Thus, Plaintiff's claims and Python's counterclaims are so related as to "form part of the same case or controversy." Accordingly, the Court has, and will exercise, supplemental jurisdiction over Python's counterclaims and denies Plaintiff's 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff also argues that Python's counterclaims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. More specifically, he asserts two grounds: (1) that the actions that Python plead as instances of detrimental reliance are merely its "general business activities that it spends time on no matter what -- not something it did in reliance on Plaintiff's alleged misrepresentation; and (2) that Python's fraud arguments are based on a report from Lead Intelligence, Inc. that Plaintiff contends lacks credibility and reliability, and thus, "cannot be used to prove Plaintiff entered any information." Python responds procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, it moves to strike the Motion to Dismiss for failing to comply with the Court's rules governing civil procedure. Substantially, it does not specifically rebut Plaintiff's claims that ordinary business expenses do not satisfy the detrimental-reliance element; instead, it simply repeats its assertions in its counterclaims that it expended "both employee time and resources to call Plaintiff' and ‘Plaintiff filed a lawsuit based on these misrepresentations and caused Python to incur attorney's fees and other costs in defending this spurious, manufactured lawsuit." The Court deems it unnecessary to strike Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss or deem the Motion to Strike as unopposed, since the Court's ruling herein moots Python's Motion to Strike. The Court, however, warns the parties to fully comply with the Court's local rules and Rules of Civil Procedure lest their pleadings be struck or be deemed unopposed. The Court holds that Python's expenditure of employee time and resources suffice to survive this 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiff argues that Python's counterclaims should be dismissed pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act, codified in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Secs. 27.001, et seq. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaims pursuant to the Texas CPA. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GVSRV6 QG LANDSCAPE: Romero Sues Over Discrimination, Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JOSE ROBERTO ROMERO, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QG LANDSCAPE INC., ROBERTO MARTINEZ, SAL ZUCCARELLO, PETER ZUCCARELLO, and ANTOINETTE ZUCCARELLO, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-08561 (E.D.N.Y., December 16, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York Executive Law and the New York City Charter and Administrative Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. The suit is brought against the Defendants for discrimination and hostile work environment based on race, color, and national origin. The suit further seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages, as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The Plaintiff is a dark-skinned Hispanic male of Salvadoran national origin who commenced employment with the Corporate Defendant on March 13, 2023, as a construction worker until his discriminatory termination on August 26, 2024, notes the complaint. QG Landscape is a landscaping company with its principal place of business in Whitestone, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Wisniewski, Esq. ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C. 17 State Street, Suite 820 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 267-2101 E-mail: rw@rwapc.com RIVERSIDE NATURAL: Mislabels Granola Bars, Gamino Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- TIANA GAMINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVERSIDE NATURAL FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-02698 (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024) is a consumer class action pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, seeking to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Defendant with respect to the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of its MadeGood(R) granola bars. According to the complaint, the Defendant has misleadingly labeled and marketed its products to reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, by omitting and not disclosing to consumers on its packaging that the products may contain metal. The Defendant specifically lists the ingredients in its products, but fails to disclose the presence of metal. The Defendant also claims that many of the products are safe for schools when they are in fact not, says the suit. Riverside Natural Foods Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal place of business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION: Class Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the plaintiff's consent motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned as ANTONIO AMIGON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -against- SAFEWAY CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISES, LLC and STEVEN CESTARO, Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 20-CV-5222 (PK) (E.D.N.Y.). On October 29, 2020, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC and Steven Cestaro, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. An amended complaint, filed on June 9, 2022, claimed Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid the prevailing wages or benefits for hours worked on New York City excavation projects, time spent traveling between job sites and Defendants' yard, or for work performed in the yard. This led to significant unpaid regular and overtime wages. Plaintiff also alleged Defendants failed to provide proper wage statements. The Court conditionally approved the FLSA collective action. After mediation, the parties reached an agreement to settle this case. Plaintiff, with Defendants' consent, now requests preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; approval of the proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement, Claim Form, and Reminder Notice; and a date for a final approval and fairness hearing. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for payment of a "Gross Settlement Amount" not to exceed $3,000,000.00, Plaintiff agrees to release all claims against Defendants. "Participating Claimants," or those who submit a claim form, release all claims for any wage and hour violations that may have occurred arising from or relating to each Participating Claimant's employment or engagement with Defendants or related entities under federal, New York State or local law. Class members who do not submit a claim form release all claims for any wage and hour violations that may have occurred arising from or relating to each Class Member's employment or engagement with Defendants or any related entities under New York State or local law. The settlement amount, which will not exceed $3,000,000.00, plus all interest and accretions will be used to pay service awards, attorneys' fees, costs, and settlement administration fees. Within ten days of receiving preliminary approval of the settlement, Defendants will transfer $100,000.00 to the claims administrator. Within thirty days after the final approval order, Defendants will transfer the remaining $2,900,000.00 to the claims administrator as well. The parties have not yet agreed to attorneys' fees, although Plaintiff's counsel will not seek more than one-third of the total Settlement Fund. The parties have also preliminarily agreed to service awards for Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000.00 and four other opt-in plaintiffs in the amount of $2500.00 each for a total of $20,000.00 and a claims administrator fee limited to a maximum of $20,000.00. After these payments are made, the remaining "Net Settlement Amount" is to be distributed to Participating Claimants who timely submit a valid claim form. The parties in this action seek preliminary approval of Plaintiff as representative of the Settlement Class. The parties also seek preliminary approval of Pelton Graham LLC, Plaintiff's counsel, as class counsel. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of settlement only, the Court preliminarily certifies a Settlement Class in this action, consisting of all current and former individuals who worked for Safeway in New York as backhoe operators at any time during the period of March 15, 2014 through March 26, 2024. Excluded from the Settlement Class are any Settlement Class members that validly and timely request exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Notice and this Order The Court preliminarily finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met because: (a) the Settlement Class is too numerous for joinder to be practical; (b) there are common legal and factual questions; (c) the Lead Plaintiff's claims are typical of the Settlement Class; (d) the Lead Plaintiff can adequately represent the Settlement Class; (e) common questions predominate over individual ones; and (f) a class action is the most efficient and fair method to resolve the dispute. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the purposes of settlement only, (a) Lead Plaintiff Antonio Amigon is preliminarily certified as the class representative on behalf of the Settlement Class; and (b) Pelton Graham LLC is preliminarily certified as Lead Counsel for the Settlement Class, and is authorized to act on behalf of the class representatives and other Settlement Class members, with respect to all acts or consents required by or that may be given pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, including all acts that are reasonably necessary to consummate the Settlement Agreement. The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement Agreement should be approved in that:(a) the Settlement Agreement results from good faith, arm's length negotiations, including a mediation among Lead Plaintiff and Defendants under the direction of an experienced mediator; (b) the relief provided to the Settlement Class is adequate; (c) the proposed settlement treats Settlement Class members equitably relative to each other; and (d) the proponents of the settlement are experienced in class-action securities litigation and had sufficient information to evaluate the settlement. The Court approves the appointment of CPT Group as the Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice procedure in connection with the proposed settlement, as well as the processing of claims. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on April 29, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York 11201. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pqbAx4 SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL: Discloses Private Medical Info, Voss Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA ROSE VOSS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08979 (N.D. Cal., December 12, 2024) is an action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's practice of disclosing medical booking information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients to LinkedIn. According to the complaint, information concerning an individual's healthcare, including medical procedures, is protected by state and federal law. Despite these protections, and unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with LinkedIn to intercept sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected medical information. As a consequence of these interceptions, the Plaintiff has received advertisements marketing various cosmetic medical procedures, specifically targeted at Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's disclosure of her medical booking information. The Defendant breached its duties of confidentiality by unlawfully disclosing Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected health information, says the suit. SkinSpirit Essential LLC provides an array of medical services and treatments to its patients, including various injectables, laser treatments, body contouring, and laser hair removal procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL: Faces Rusow Suit Over Medical Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- KOURTNEY RUSOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-09317 (N.D. Cal., December 20, 2024) is a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. The lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and all California residents who accessed https://www.skinspirit.com/ to schedule a consultation for medical treatment and/or services. According to the complaint, the Defendant intercepted Plaintiff's and Class Members' electronic communications, including communications containing protected medical information, through the LinkedIn Insight Tag, which tracked, stored and unlawfully disclosed Plaintiff's and Class Members' private and confidential information to third parties, such as LinkedIn. The Plaintiff brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from these illegal actions, says the suit. SkinSpirit Essential LLC provides an array of medical services and treatments to its patients, including various injectables, laser treatments, body contouring, and laser hair removal procedures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131-2800 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES: Certeza Seeks More Time to File Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFREDO CERTEZA, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, V. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIES HOME IMPROVEMENTS, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03020-DCN (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter order extending deadline to Feb. 3, 2024, an approximately 30-day extension, to provide adequate time to respond. Pursuant to local rule 7.02, the Plaintiff's counsel certifies that they have conferred with the Defendant's counsel before filing this motion and confirmed that defendant does not oppose this request. an order to deny class certification, and for a protective order-each filed on Dec. 19, 2024. The Plaintiff justifies his request as follows: 1. In May 2024, plaintiff sued defendant in a class action alleging it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. 2. In June 2024, defendant answered plaintiff's complaint. 3. In July 2024, the Court set a scheduling order that it later amended in September 2024. Under the current order, plaintiff must identify expert witnesses by March 7, 2025, defendant must respond by April 10, 2025, the parties must mediate by April 24, 2025, discovery will close on August 8, 2025, and the parties will select the jury on December 1, 2025. On Dec. 19, 2025, defendant filed three motions, as described above. Under local rule 7.06, plaintiffs three responses would be due by Jan. 2, 2025. Southern Industries provides home improvement services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rysBHV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Maxfield, Esq. Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: (803) 509-6800 Facsimile: (855) 299-1656 E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com - and - Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Alex Phillips 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: aphillips@straussborrelli.com The Defendant is represented by: Diane J. Zelmer, Esq. BERENSON LLP 4495 Military Trial, Suite 203 Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 429-4496 Facsimile: (703) 991-2195 E-mail: djz@berensonllp.com hcc@berensonllp.com - and - G. Wade Leach, III, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 1221 Main Street, Suite 1800 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 799-9800 E-mail: wleach@burr.com SPIFFY FRANCHISING: Siert, et Case Stayed Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as ALINA SIERT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPIFFY FRANCHISING, LLC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-01771-EJD (N.D. Calif.). This case is stayed pending arbitration. Franchisee Plaintiffs Alina Siert and A4H, LLC bring claims against Franchisor Defendants Spiffy Franchising, LLC, Get Spiffy, Inc., Scot Wingo, Karl Murphy, and Connor Finnegan arising from Defendants' alleged fraudulent business practices and misrepresentations. Before the Court is Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. On December 19, 2020, Plaintiffs entered into a written Franchise Agreement with Defendants. Paragraph 21(b) of the Franchise Agreement requires binding arbitration of "any action arising out of or relating to [the Franchise Agreement] or the making, performance, or interpretation thereof" ("Arbitration Clause"). Paragraph 21(i) further specifies that any claim or controversy arising out of the Franchise Agreement will be governed by North Carolina law, with the venue set in Durham, North Carolina. The parties only dispute the validity and enforceability of the Arbitration Clause, not whether Plaintiffs' claims fall within its scope. Plaintiffs argue that the Arbitration Clause is invalid because of (1) lack of mutual assent, (2) unconscionability, and (3) waiver. The Court will address each argument in turn. The Court finds that Defendants have failed to demonstrate a mutual assent to arbitrate disputes in North Carolina under North Carolina law. However, rather than find the entire Arbitration Clause unenforceable, the Court will sever these terms from the agreement. The court rejected Plaintiffs' claim that the Franchise Agreement was procedurally unconscionable due to being a contract of adhesion with unequal bargaining power. Evidence showed that Plaintiffs, with the assistance of legal counsel, actively participated in meaningful negotiations, making changes to the agreement and reaching a resolution before signing on December 20, 2020. Although having legal counsel does not automatically eliminate procedural unconscionability, Plaintiffs failed to present evidence of a significant disparity in bargaining power. The Court finds no evidence of procedural unconscionability in the Arbitration Clause. Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that Defendants waived their right to arbitration by failing to initiate arbitration within thirty days of Plaintiffs' written notice of intent, as required under the Arbitration Clause. The Court finds that Defendants have not waived their right to arbitration. Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate their claims, but the parties are not bound by the invalid forum selection and choice of law provisions in the Arbitration Clause. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yC4MIK SUMMERFORD HEALTH: Gay Sues Over Unlawful Pay Practices ------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA GAY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUMMERFORD HEALTH AND REHAB, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-01725-HNJ (N.D. Ala., December 12, 2024) challenges Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. During the course of her employment, the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours nearly every week. However, the Defendant only paid plaintiff overtime at 1.5 times her straight time rate regardless of whether she earned non-discretionary bonuses and shift differentials. Moreover, the Defendant failed to include this non-discretionary compensation into the calculation of Plaintiff's regular rate of pay, says the suit. Headquartered in Alabama, Summerford Health and Rehab, LLC owns and operates a nursing facility Morgan County, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas O. Cooley, Esq, LANGSTON & LOTT, PLLC 100 South Main Street Post Office Box 382 Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 728-9733 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: tcooley@langstonlott.com - and - William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 S Main Street Booneville, MS 38829 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com SUNPATH LTD: Morales Suit Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KURT MORALES II, BRANDON CALLIER, LUCAS HORTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUNPATH LTD., a Delaware corporation, NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, SING FOR SERVICE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and PELICAN INVESTMENT HOLDINGS GROUP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, AFFORDABLE AUTO SHIELD, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376-JLH-SRF (D. Del.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and -- certifying the following Classes under Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and (b)(3) for Counts I, III, IV, and V of their Fifth Amended Complaint against the Defendants. 1. Renny Entities Classes -- Renny Entities Class "All persons who were sold over the phone a vehicle service contract contained in the file produced by Stone Eagle F & I named Sunpath-subpoena-results ("StoneEagle File"), for whom the dealer (Column E of the StoneEagle File) is one of the following: Advanced Auto Protection 0 Advanced Auto Protection 1 Advanced Auto Protection 2 Advanced Auto Protection 3 Advanced Auto Protection 5 Affordable Auto Shield Affordable Car Cure Assured Auto Group National Auto Protection National Car Cure." There are 57,982 entries in the StoneEagle File that qualify. -- Renny Entities Texas Subclass: "All persons in Texas who qualify for membership in the Renny Entities Class (1.1): 5,888 members. -- Renny-Mepco Class "All persons who qualify for membership in the Renny Entities Class (1.1) for whom the lienholder (Column F of the StoneEagle File) is Mepco or Paid Off – Mepco." There are 28,478 entries in the StoneEagle File that qualify. -- Renny-Mepco Texas Subclass: "All persons in Texas who qualify for membership in the Renny-Mepco Class (1.2): 361 members." 2. VAD Classes -- VAD Class: "All persons who were sold over the phone a vehicle service contract contained in the StoneEagle File, for whom the dealer (Column E of the StoneEagle File) is VAD or Vehicle Activation Department." There are 3,223 entries in the StoneEagle File that qualify. -- VAD Texas Subclass: "All persons in Texas who qualify for membership in the VAD Class (2.1): 2,709 members." -- VAD-Mepco Class: "All persons who qualify for membership in the VAD Class (2.1) for whom the lienholder (Column F of the StoneEagle File) is Mepco or Paid Off – Mepco." There are 481 entries in the StoneEagle File that qualify. -- VAD-Mepco Texas Subclass: "All persons in Texas who qualify for membership in the VAD-Mepco Class (2.2): 57 members." 3. Texas Registration Classes -- Texas Registration Class: "All persons in Texas who were sold over the phone a vehicle service contract contained in the StoneEagle File, for whom the dealer (Column E of the StoneEagle File) is one of the following: Advanced Auto Protection 0 Advanced Auto Protection 1 Advanced Auto Protection 2 Advanced Auto Protection 3 Advanced Auto Protection 5 Affordable Auto Shield Affordable Car Cure Assured Auto Group Auto Defender National Auto Protection National Car Cure Vehicle Activation Department." There are 7,432 persons who qualify for membership. -- Texas Registration Mepco Subclass: "All persons who qualify for membership in the Texas Registration Class (3.1) for whom the lienholder is Mepco or Paid Off – Mepco." There are 3,796 entries in the StoneEagle File that qualify. Excluded from the Classes are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants' subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from a respective Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiffs' counsel and Defendants' counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1.1, counsel for Plaintiffs certify that lead counsel and Delaware counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants met and conferred on December 13, 2024, and made reasonable efforts to reach an agreement regarding the relief sought herein. No agreement could be made. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dE0eq7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Jeffrey Blake, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com jeff@ttorneyzim.com - and - Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave. Ste. 200 San Mateo CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com SUSHI NAKAZAWA: Isakov Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- SIMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sushi Nakazawa, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09488 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.sushinakazawa.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On December 4, 2024, the Plaintiff was looking for a new sushi restaurant as he enjoys going to new places for dinner with his friends. While searching online, he came across the Defendant's restaurant, which markets sushi and offers a traditional omakase experience. The Plaintiff attempted to make a reservation but encountered numerous accessibility issues. For example, the interactive element did not announce its role, nor did it indicate whether it was expanded or collapsed when pressed. As a result, he was unaware of an additional link inside the reservation dialog that would have led him to the booking page. These access barriers have caused Sushinakazawa.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Sushi Nakazawa's policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Sushi Nakazawa, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of services, including, the ability to view an exclusive Omakase menu, featuring prepared dishes, with a focus on sourced fish and shellfish.[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 TD AMERITRADE: Faces Masud Class Suit Over Sweep Program -------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD MASUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-00499 (D. Neb., Dec. 24, 2024) is a case arising from TD Ameritrade's exploitative and unfair implementation of its "Sweep Program" resulting in the breach of its fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and similarly situated retirement account investors as their investment advisors and their contractual obligation to operate the Sweep Program. TD Ameritrade breached its fiduciary duties when it placed its customers' cash in low interest-bearing accounts held by its own Affiliated Banks and then pocketed the unpaid interest as additional profit, the suit contends. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against TD Ameritrade, and only for the period in which Class member's retirement accounts were custodied and maintained by TDA and/or TDAC. The Plaintiff's claims against Ameritrade include breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. The Complaint also alleges a California Subclass to bring a claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff Masud maintained a retirement account with TD Ameritrade, the Richard Masud Rollover TD IRA, which he opened in January 2016. The Masud IRA is a brokerage account with TD Ameritrade in which cash was held over the course of the life of the account. TDA is a financial services firm based in the U.S. with operations worldwide, including California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave Suit 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com TECH MAHINDRA: Judgment in Williams Discrimination Suit Vacated --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as LEE WILLIAMS, Individually and in His Representative Capacity, Appellant v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS) INC. No. 24-1434 (3rd Cir.), Judges Patty Shwartz, Paul Matey and Theodore A. McKee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting TMA's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff filed class claims outside the statute of limitations. They will remand for the District Court to consider, in light of the availability of wrong-forum tolling, whether equitable tolling is appropriate. Williams, a former TMA employee, contends that TMA engaged in discriminatory employment practices against non-South Asians that resulted in his August 19, 2015, termination. In August 2018, before Williams took any legal action, another former TMA employee, Roderick Grant, filed a putative class action making similar discrimination allegations against TMA in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Williams filed this putative class action in the District of New Jersey on April 21, 2020, approximately four years and eight months after his employment with TMA ended. He brought a single claim for disparate treatment on the basis of race under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, seeking class-wide relief. TMA moved to dismiss Williams's New Jersey complaint, arguing that he filed it after the four-year statute of limitations expired. In response, Williams asserted that two types of tolling applied: wrong-forum tolling and tolling principles set forth in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). The District Court held that American Pipe tolling was unavailable under China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 584 U.S. 732 (2018), and dismissed the case without considering whether wrong-forum tolling applied to Williams's class action claims. The Circuit Judges holds, "We affirmed the District Court's conclusion that American Pipe tolling was unavailable but vacated and remanded for the District Court to consider 'whether wrong-forum tolling applies.'" On remand, the District Court held that because Grant's motion for leave to amend was denied in the District of North Dakota, the amended complaint was never deemed filed, and therefore wrong-forum tolling was unavailable for the purpose of tolling the limitations period for Williams's New Jersey complaint. Williams appeals. The Third Circuit ruled that a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, counts as a "filing" by the proposed plaintiff for the purposes of wrong-forum tolling, even if the motion is ultimately denied. The Court found that Williams, the proposed plaintiff, sought to assert his claim within the statute of limitations by attempting to join an existing class action, and the first-filed rule barred him from filing a separate lawsuit. The court had denied his motion only because the original plaintiff was compelled to arbitrate. As a result, the Court held that wrong-forum tolling applies and left the District Court to determine if equitable tolling principles support tolling in this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1aD8mM TR WINE: Liz Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website ------------------------------------------------ PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TR Wine, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09499 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://eastsidecellars.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. 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. Moreover, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Headquartered in New York, NY, TR Wine, LLC owns and operates the website which provides to the public with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view wines, whiskies, spirits, champagne, sparkling wines, sake, and rums. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: Faces Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Transocean Ltd. (NYSE:RIG) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/transocean-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=119524&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Transocean Ltd. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 31, 2023 and September 2, 2024. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the oil rigs Discoverer Inspiration and Development Driller III were considered non-strategic assets; (2) the Company's recorded asset valuations were overstated; (3) as a result, the Company would take nearly twice the vessels' sale price in impairment if sold; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Transocean Ltd. stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares -- go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/transocean-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=119524&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] TWO FARMS: Denial of Class Certification in Sniadach Suit Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as EDWARD SNIADACH, et al., v. TWO FARMS, INC., et al., No. 1451 (Md. App. Ct.), Judges Anne K. Albright, Stuart R. Berger and Robert Zarnoch of the Appellate Court of Maryland upheld the judgment of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City that denied the Appellants' class certification motion and granted summary judgment on their fraudulent inducement claims. Appellants present two questions: (1) Whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Appellants' motion for class action certification; and (2) Whether the circuit court erred when it granted summary judgment on Appellants' claims of fraudulent inducement. This case arose from disputes about the availability of Med-Pay to cover the third-party personal injury claims of Edward Sniadach and Terkesha Slappy-Hawkins. Both sustained injuries on premises owned by Two Farms. Two Farms' insurer for such claims was Appellee Zurich America Insurance Co.. Appellee Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. was Zurich's claims administrator for these claims. Mr. Sniadach released his claims against Appellees as part of a $15,000.00 settlement. Mr. Sniadach's settlement was silent as to Med-Pay, and he and his counsel were not informed of its existence until an email from Appellees dated December 26, 2019 -- a week after he had resolved his claim. The settlement of the two claims did not end the disputes. On March 24, 2022, Appellants filed a complaint against Appellees in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Appellants alleged six causes of action: (1) Intentional Misrepresentation; (2) Constructive Fraud; (3) Fraudulent Inducement; (4) Breach of Contract; (5) Negligent Misrepresentation via Concealment; and (6) Insurance Bad Faith. In essence, Appellants alleged that Appellees improperly and intentionally failed to disclose the availability of Med-Pay despite Appellants' repeated inquiries. Appellants alleged that by failing to disclose the availability of Med-Pay, Appellees had fraudulently induced them into accepting lower settlements than they would have accepted if the availability of Med-Pay had been disclosed. Appellants sought class action certification, alleging that non-disclosure of the availability of Med-Pay is a widespread practice of Appellees Zurich and Gallagher Bassett. Thus, Appellants proposed a class of [a]ll persons in the State of Maryland that were injured and suffered medical expenses, through no fault of their own, in the property of any third-party that was insured by the above-named Defendants and were not informed of the existence of a Med-Pay provision that was purchased by the third-party insured to pay for their medical bills and were not paid by the Med-Pay provision. Appellees opposed class certification, and after a hearing on January 4, 2022, the circuit court denied certification. The circuit court determined that it would be difficult to ascertain who was in the class. Looking to the explicit requirements of Maryland Rule 2-231, the court concluded that Appellants' proposed class failed Rule 2-231(b)'s numerosity, typicality, and adequacy prerequisites, as well as Rule 2-231(c)(3)'s predominance requirement. Appellees then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Appellants' claims were precluded by the releases they had signed when settling their respective claims, and that Appellants had not alleged sufficient facts to otherwise establish their legal claims. Specifically, Appellees argued that Appellants were contractually bound to the plain and unambiguous language of their releases. Addressing Appellants' allegations that they had been improperly induced into signing the releases, Appellees argued, in turn, that (1) fraud had not been established because no representation had been made, and even if it had, Appellants did not rely on it because they signed their releases either with knowledge of, or with conscious ignorance toward, the existence of Med-Pay; 4 (2) no fiduciary duty or confidential relationship existed between the parties to support constructive fraud; (3) a negligent misrepresentation could not be established because Appellees did not owe a legal duty of care; and (4) Appellees did not breach any contract that existed between the parties. The Judges say, "Because we conclude that Appellants acquiesced in the final judgment they now challenge, we dismiss their appeal. Even if Appellants had not acquiesced, we see no abuse of discretion or error in the circuit court's denial of class certification or in its granting of summary judgment against Appellants on their fraudulent inducement claims." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tmgcOx UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks Modification of March 11, 2021 Order ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on Feb. 6, 2025, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C), to modify the Court's March 11, 2021 Order granting motion for class certification. The relief Plaintiff requests in this motion is an order: (1) modifying the Court's Order Granting Motion for Class Certification to (a) amend the class definition and (b) certify the proposed Subclass defined below; (2) appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Subclass; and (3) appointing Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Psych-Appeal, Inc. as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Subclass. The Certified Class The Court previously certified a Class defined as follows: "Any participant or beneficiary in a health benefit plan governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") whose request for coverage of residential treatment services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after June 2, 2017, based upon UBH's 2017 Level of Care Guidelines ("LOCGs") or upon a Coverage Determination Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and whose request was not subsequently approved, in full, following an administrative appeal." The Class excludes any member of a fully-insured plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of residential treatment was related to a substance use disorder, except that the Class includes members of plans governed by the state law of Texas who were denied coverage of substance use disorder services sought or provided outside of Texas. The Proposed Subclass Rule 23 permits a certified class to be "divided into subclasses that are each treated as a class" under the rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(5). The Plaintiff requests that the Court certify a "Reprocessing Subclass," defined as follows: "Any member of the Class who incurred expenses for residential treatment for which benefits were not paid, except that the Reprocessing Subclass shall not include Class members whose written notification of denial, as reflected in UBH's records, (a) identifies a reason for denying the request for coverage other than the Class member's failure to satisfy UBH's 2017 LOCGs or a Coverage Determination Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and/or (b) specifies that the member's failure to satisfy the applicable Guideline was based solely on a portion of the applicable Guideline that was unchallenged in this action." The Plaintiff "Mary Jones" (a pseudonym) brought this action on her own behalf and on behalf of the now-certified Class seeking redress for UBH’s violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Class alleges that each Class member's employer-sponsored health benefit plan "required, as a precondition to behavioral health coverage, that the requested treatment comport with generally accepted standards of care" (i.e., the "GASC Requirement"). United Behavioral was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8RYRbb at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x 101 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowar, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: creynolds@zuckerman.com dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her administrative motion to seal exhibits to plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order. Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 to the Plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order and (b) portions of Plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of her motion to modify class certification order that describe the confidential content of and/or quote from the Sealed Exhibits pursuant to Civil L.R. 79-5(d), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Declaration of Caroline E. Reynolds in Support of the Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal. United Behavioral Health was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes providing management services on a contract and fee basis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qRUmji at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meiram Bendat, Esq. PSYCH-APPEAL, INC. 7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x 101 Facsimile: (888) 975-1957 E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com - and - Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq. D. Brian Hufford, Esq. Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: creynolds@zuckerman.com dbhufford@zuckerman.com jcowart@zuckerman.com UNITED HEALTHCARE: Filing for Initial OK of Settlement Due Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elaine Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. United HealthCare Services, Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell entered an order that: 1) The Parties shall work in good faith to complete and sign a full written class action settlement agreement by Jan. 27, 2025. 2) Elaine Johnson shall file her unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement by Jan. 31, 2025; and 3) The briefing schedule regarding Plaintiff's motion for class certification is vacated, and all related briefing deadlines are moot. United Healthcare was founded in 1974. The company's line of business includes providing hospital, medical, and other health services. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GgUOty at no extra charge.[CC] UNIVERSAL BUILDING: Faces Levario Class Suit in Cal. Super. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY CO. DBA UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES, et al. The case is captioned as JOSEPHINE LEVARIO, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES AND SUPPLY CO. DBA UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES, et al., Case No. 24CV021325 (Cal. Super., Oct. 21, 2024). The suit alleges violation of the employment related complaint laws. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lauri A. Damrell. Universal Building provides professional residential and commercial building/contracting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason Doidge, Esq. D.Law, Inc. E-mail: m.doidge@d.law 400 N. Brand Blvd, Suite 700 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 275-5799 VA CLAIMS: Court Narrows Claims in Warriors and Family, et al. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as WARRIORS AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE CENTER LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VA CLAIMS INSIDER LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-1473-DII (W.D. Tex.), Judge Robert Pitman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint filed by the plaintiff. Before the Court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane concerning Defendants VA Claims Insider, LLC, Brian T. Reese, and Laurel Reese's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. The parties in this case provide services for veterans applying for disability benefits through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Plaintiffs are various VA-accredited individuals, as well as business entities doing business through VA-accredited agents and attorneys. Defendant VA Claims Insider LLC is a business entity, run by its sole member and president, Defendant Brian T. Reese, and its Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Laurel Reese. Defendants are not VA-accredited. Defendants describe VACI as an "education-based coaching and consulting company that provides education and consulting services to veterans seeking VA disability benefits." Plaintiffs have brought a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act and a claim of unfair competition by misappropriation under Texas common law against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that VACI's advertising makes false and misleading statements that harm Plaintiffs by distracting and steering veterans from their business. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that VACI advertises that it does not prepare, present, or prosecute VA disability claims, while in reality performing these services. Plaintiffs also allege that VACI's advertising misleads veterans regarding VACI's fees, and that VACI charges fees unrelated to its services. Plaintiffs allege that these actions violate VA regulations and steer veterans away from seeking services from VA-accredited agents and attorneys. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both of Plaintiffs' claims against all Defendants. Defendants raised multiple grounds for dismissal of Plaintiffs' false advertising claim: 1) the complaint is an inadmissible shotgun pleading; 2) Plaintiffs fail to plead VACI's advertising contains misleading statements; 3) and Plaintiffs are impermissibly trying to enforce VA regulations, rather than the Lanham Act. For Plaintiffs' unfair competition by misappropriation, Defendants argue for dismissal on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to plead that there is a product that could be misappropriated. This Court referred Defendants' motion to dismiss to United States Magistrate Judge Mark Lane for a report and recommendation. In his report, Judge Lane recommends dismissal of both Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs object to the recommendation to dismiss their false advertising claim but did not object to dismissal of their unfair competition by misappropriation claim. Defendants argue Plaintiffs fail to allege Defendants make any false or misleading statements, which is a required element of a false advertising claim. However, Plaintiffs allege Defendants make misleading statements in several categories, including 1) misleading statements that VACI does not prepare claims when it does; 2) misleading statements regarding VACI's fee structure; and 3) misleading statements regarding VACI's referral practices. Defendants respond that their statements are not false or misleading, but at the motion to dismiss stage, all of Plaintiffs' allegations must be taken as true. The Court finds Plaintiffs' allegations sufficient at this stage. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail to properly allege causation or damages. However, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' statements were material and likely influenced veterans' decisions on which services to engage for their VA disability claims. Plaintiffs claim that they and Class members were harmed by these statements, believing they will continue to be harmed unless Defendants cease their misleading practices. Specifically, veterans misled into using Defendants' services instead of those of an accredited attorney or agent like Plaintiffs resulted in lost business opportunities for Plaintiffs and Class members. The Court finds these allegations sufficiently plead causation and damages. Judge Lane recommended dismissing Plaintiffs' false advertising claim on the grounds that Plaintiffs are impermissibly attempting to use a claim under the Lanham Act to enforce VA regulations. The report and recommendations of Judge Lane are adopted in part and rejected in part. Defendants' motion is denied as to Plaintiffs' false advertising claim and granted as to Plaintiffs' unfair competition by misappropriation claim. Plaintiffs' unfair competition by misappropriation claim is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wqxk2c VENTYX BIOSCIENCES: Amir Ahmadi Appointed Lead Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------- Andrew G. Schopler of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Amir Ahmadi's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case captioned as Omer YUKSEL, Plaintiff, v. VENTYX BIOSCIENCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 3:24-cv-0415-AGS-DDL (S.D. Calif.). Ahmadi's motion to appoint Pomerantz LLP as lead counsel is also granted. "This is a federal securities class action" subject to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The PSLRA requires the Court to appoint a "lead" plaintiff and counsel. The district court must select the "presumptively most adequate plaintiff" -- "the one who has the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class and otherwise satisfies" the "typicality" and "adequacy" requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. District courts consider four factors to determine the lead plaintiff with the largest financial interest: the number of shares purchased, the number of net shares purchased, the total funds expended, and the losses suffered. Ahmadi purchased 400 shares of Ventyx stock, retained all 400 shares, spent $7,382, and suffered a loss of approximately $6,466. Ahmadi asserts that, to his knowledge, he has the largest financial interest of any Ventyx investor or group seeking to serve as lead plaintiff. With no other candidates to compare his losses to, and absent contrary evidence, the Court finds that Ahmadi has the greatest financial interest in the case. The Court finds that Ahmadi meets the Rule 23 requirements of typicality and adequacy based on a "prima facie showing" at this stage. Ahmadi, like all proposed class members, purchased Ventyx securities allegedly inflated by Defendants' misrepresentations or omissions and suffered damages upon the disclosure of those misrepresentations. The Court concludes that Ahmadi’s claims are typical of the class's claims, as both are based on the same legal theory and arise from the same events and conduct. Therefore, the typicality requirement is satisfied. The Court determined that Ahmadi's interests align with those of the proposed class members, citing his "significant loss" and commitment to protecting the class's interests. With no evidence of conflicts or inability to effectively represent the class, and with adequately qualified counsel, Ahmadi meets the adequacy requirement. As a result, Ahmadi is designated as the presumptive lead plaintiff. This presumption may only be rebutted by proof from a class member that Ahmadi cannot fairly represent the class or is subject to unique defenses. Since the motion is unopposed and Ahmadi's qualifications are unrebutted, the Court grants his motion for lead plaintiff appointment. Ahmadi has selected Pomerantz LLP to represent the class. Given the firm's "extensive experience in similar litigation," the Court finds Pomerantz a reasonable choice of counsel. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ASHPIa WAL-MART STORES: Court Tosses Zanetich CREAMMA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as ERICK ZANETICH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Appellant v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, INC., doing business as Walmart Inc.; SAM'S EAST INC., doing business as Sam's Club Fulfillment Center, Appellees, No. 23-1996 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing the two-count lawsuit individually and on behalf of a putative class. In 2021, as part of its efforts to legalize and regulate marijuana use "in a similar fashion to the regulation of alcohol for adults," New Jersey enacted the Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act -- referred to herein as 'CREAMMA.' N.J. Pub. L. 2021, ch. 16 One of the provisions of CREAMMA prohibits employers from refusing to hire a job applicant for the use of cannabis. CREAMMA, however, does not expressly provide a private remedy for redressing employment discrimination against cannabis users. In January 2022, less than a year after the enactment of CREAMMA, New Jersey citizen Erick Zanetich applied for an asset protection position at a Walmart facility in Swedesboro, New Jersey. A week later, he was offered a job there -- subject to the condition that he take and pass a drug test. That condition reflected a corporate policy -- in effect even after CREAMMA – under which all job applicants and employees were ineligible for future employment upon testing positive for drugs. Zanetich tested positive for cannabis, and his job offer was rescinded. Prompted by the rescission of his job offer, Zanetich filed a two-count putative class-action complaint in the Superior Court of Gloucester County against Walmart and one of its affiliated corporations. For relief, Zanetich sought back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and an injunction ordering rescission of the corporate drug policy among other remedies, but, as allowed by New Jersey law, his complaint did not demand a sum certain. Walmart and the affiliated corporation -- neither of which has citizenship in New Jersey -- removed the case to federal court, invoking the District Court's diversity jurisdiction on the grounds that Zanetich was not a citizen of the same states as Walmart and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Although both of Zanetich's claims rest on the same underlying fact -- the rescission of his job offer based on his positive marijuana test -- they rely on different legal theories. Count I depends on the legal conclusion that CREAMMA contains an implied remedy for violations of its preemployment protections. Count II hinges on the applicability of New Jersey's public policy employment exception to the rescission of a job offer based on a positive drug test for cannabis. Walmart moved to dismiss both counts for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by arguing that neither legal theory was viable. Its arguments persuaded the District Court, which granted the motion and dismissed the case. Through a timely notice of appeal of that final decision, Zanetich invoked the Third Circuit's appellate jurisdiction, and he now contends that the District Court erred as a matter of law in dismissing both claims. Zanetich bases his second count on New Jersey's commonlaw public policy exception to at-will employment, first recognized in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 417 A.2d 505, 512 (N.J. 1980). According to the Third Circuit, that exception protects only employees -- not job applicants -- and thus it does not encompass claims for failure to hire in violation of public policy. The Third Circuit says New Jersey has not permitted and likely would not permit Zanetich to pursue a claim for failure-to-hire in violation of public policy. Zanetich raises two additional arguments. He contends that the District Court, upon dismissing his complaint, should have allowed him to make curative amendments. He also seeks certification of the two dispositive issues to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Neither of those arguments succeeds. Zanetich asserts that because this is a civil rights case, the District Court was required to dismiss his complaint without prejudice and allow an opportunity for curative amendment. But the this Court's willingness to permit an opportunity for curative amendment is limited to cases involving federally recognized civil rights. Zanetich also requests that the challenges to the viability of both of his claims be certified to the New Jersey Supreme Court. But certifying an issue to a state supreme court is an act of judicial discretion, and in this case none of the common considerations associated with the exercise of that discretion counsels strongly in favor of certification, the Third Circuit finds. Considerations of judicial economy also disfavor certification. On de novo review of the District Court's decision, the Third Circuit concludes will affirm the judgment of the District Court, and exercising our discretion, we will not certify either question. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AFsNh9 Counsel for Appellant: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER 9 Tanner Street Suite 101 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com Counsel for Appellees: Misha Tseytlin, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 227 W Monroe Street Suite 3900 Chicago, IL 60606 E-mail: misha.tseytlin@troutman.com WE ARE THE CHOMPIANS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. We Are The Chompians LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-04466-NEB-LIB (D. Minn., December 12, 2024), alleges violations of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to ensure its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. Moreover, the Plaintiffs and the putative class have been injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology. Accordingly, in addition to the claim under the ADA, the Plaintiffs also assert a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, says the suit. Headquartered in Naples, FL, We Are The Chompians LLC owns and operates the website, www.chomps.com, which offers meat sticks for sale including, but not limited to, beef, turkey, venison, variety packs, more. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndselaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com WEBMD LLC: Bid to Strike Plaintiff's Expert Report Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted in part and denied in part WebMD LLC's motion to strike plaintiff's expert report or alternatively grant leave to file a sur-reply in the case captioned as LINDA M JANCIK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WEBMD LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:22-CV-644-TWT (N.D. Ga.). Plaintiff Jancik alleges that Defendant WebMD violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by improperly disclosing her and other putative class members' personally identifiable information. Jancik seeks four types of relief for her Video Privacy Protection Act claim: (1) declaratory judgment, (2) injunctive and equitable relief, (3) statutory damages of $2,500 for each Video Privacy Protection Act violation under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710(c); and (4) attorney's fees and costs. Pending before the Court is Jancik's Motion to Certify Class. She proposes the following class: All persons in the United States who, from February 17, 2020 through the date on which class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a subscription to webmd.com and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the possession of Meta Platforms, Inc. showing their video-viewing behavior on webmd.com. And she alternatively proposes the following subclass: All persons in the United States who, from February 17, 2020 through the date on which class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a newsletter subscription to webmd.com and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the possession of Meta Platforms, Inc. showing their video-viewing behavior on webmd.com that was accessed through a webmd.com newsletter. Following the filing of Jancik's reply brief in support of her class certification motion, WebMD moved to strike the expert report attached as an exhibit to that brief and not consider its opinions as part of the class certification motion. The expert report in question was submitted by Anya Verkhovskaya, purportedly in response to WebMD's expert report by James Vint. In the alternative to striking and not considering the Verkhovskaya Report, WebMD requests leave to file a sur-reply to respond to the contentions in that report. At a high level, the Vint Report opines on why identifying members of the Class and Subclass is not possible without individualized proof, while the Verkhovskaya Report opines in part on why it is. The Verkhovskaya Report offers two opinions. Opinion 1 states that a "reliable and efficient method" to identify the Class and Subclass members exists whereby Meta can identify and produce -- from a list of emails provided by WebMD -- the relevant "Event Data" of Facebook users with those associated emails. Opinion 2 states that a "reliable method of efficiently and effectively notifying the proposed Class and Subclass". While WebMD styles its motion as a motion to strike Jancik's expert rebuttal report, the Court notes that such a motion is inappropriate. An expert report is not a pleading under Rule 7(a). Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a). That being said, the principle underlying WebMD's motion is correct. The Court will construe WebMD's motion as a motion to exclude from evidence Jancik's expert report. Ultimately, the Court grants in part and denies in part the present Motion. The Court grants the Motion with respect to excluding Opinion 2 of the Verkhovskaya Report but denies the Motion with respect to excluding Opinion 1. The Court furthermore grants the Motion with respect to allowing leave for WebMD to file a sur-reply to Jancik's class certification motion. The Court finds there is a valid reason to allow a sur-reply in the instant case. Judge Thrash explains, "Here, Jancik and WebMD clearly had different understandings of Meta's ability to support class identification -- whether that is due to the complexity of the processes at play, lack of clarity in Jancik's Complaint or briefing, or otherwise. And, as a result, a number of the concerns raised by the Vint Report do not appear to be relevant under Jancik's proposed identification method. Therefore, the Court grants WebMD forty-five days from the date of this Order to file a sur-reply, with the limited purpose of rebutting the claims presented in Opinion 1 of the Verkhovskaya Report. Additionally, the Defendant may, within thirty days, depose Verkhovskaya." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nSDywK WELLFULL INC: Knowles Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLFULL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09734 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.nugenix.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff visited the website, the last occurring on December 11, 2024, in order to purchase Nugenix Multivitamins. He attempted to purchase the product but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Wellfull Inc. operates the website that retails healthcare and nutritional 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 WESTERN FIRST: Brown Wage Lawsuit to Remain in District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied plaintiff's motion to remand the case captioned as Samantha Shaunee Brown v. Western First Aid & Safety et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06238-CAS-PD (C.D. Calif.) to the Los Angeles Superior Court. On June 20, 2024, plaintiff Samantha Shaunee Brown filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court against defendants Western First Aid & Safety, Vestis Corporation, Vestis Group, Inc., Katie Hall, and Does 1 through 50. On July 24, 2024, defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. On August 12, 2024, plaintiff filed her first amended complaint naming the same defendants and asserting nine claims for relief: (1) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 204, 1185, 1194, 1194(a), 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 558); (2) Failure to Pay Wages and Overtime (Cal. Lab. Code Secs. 204, 510, 558, 1194); (3) Meal Period Liability (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7; IWC Wage Order Sec. 11); (4) Rest-Break Liability (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226.7; IWC Wage Order Sec. 12); (5) Failure to Pay Vacation Wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 227.3); (6) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226(a)); (7) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 203); (8) Failure to Reimburse Necessary Business Expenses (Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2802): and (9) Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. ("the UCL"). On August 19, 2024, plaintiff filed the instant motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. On August 29, 2024, defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand. On December 9, 2024, the District Court held a hearing. Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt hourly employee of defendants from about September 2022 to July 28, 2023, when she was terminated. Plaintiff seeks in this action to represent nine subclasses: (1) the Minimum Wages Subclass; (2) the Wages and Overtime Subclass; (3) the Meal Period Subclass; (4) the Rest Break Subclass; (5) the Wage Statement Subclass; (6) the Termination Pay Subclass (7) the Vacation Pay Subclass; (8) the Expense Reimbursement Subclass; and (9) the UCL Subclass. Plaintiff alleges that she and members of the Class were not paid for all hours worked or at proper minimum, regular, and overtime rates. She claims defendants violated the Labor Code and Wage Orders by requiring off-the-clock work, denying meal and rest breaks, failing to provide accurate wage statements, delaying wage payments (including final wages), not paying out vacation days, and failing to reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff argues that defendants fail to demonstrate that the $5 million amount in controversy required by CAFA is met. She criticizes the declaration by Alma Magana, used to estimate the class size and average pay rates, as lacking evidentiary support and claims the provided calculations rely on unfounded assumptions. Plaintiff asserts that defendants improperly assume a 100% violation rate for labor law infractions, including missed meal and rest periods, off-the-clock work, and wage payment delays, leading to inflated damage estimates. She argues that without adequate evidence, the claims should be valued at $0. Plaintiff contends that "remand 1s also warranted on the independent ground that the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over [p]laintiff's claim for equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition Law, codified at Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seg." In opposition, defendants contend that their Notice of Removal plausibly alleges minimal diversity and considers only some of plaintiff's causes of action and her request for attorneys' fees to establish an amount in controversy of over $5 million, which is sufficient to establish CAFA jurisdiction pursuant to Dart Cherokee. The District Court finds that remand is unwarranted in this case and denied the plaintiff's motion to remand. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ptGj1H WESTMAN ATELIER: Murphy Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTMAN ATELIER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09514 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2024) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.westman-atelier.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff visited the website in order to purchase a Baby Cheeks Blush Stick in Mimi. The Plaintiff attempted to purchase the product but was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented him from doing so. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Westman Atelier LLC operates the website that offers 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 WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Maneman Sues Over ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY MANEMAN, ANNETTE WILLIAMS, CASSANDRA WRIGHT, JAMES HOLLINS, AND PIERRE DONABY, individually and as representatives on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY ANNUITY COMMITTEE, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, STATE STREET GLOBAL ADVISORS TRUST COMPANY, AND JOHN DOES 1–5, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02050 (W.D. Wash., December 12, 2024), accuses the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The case arises from Defendants' agreement to transfer $1.5 billion of Weyerhaeuser's pension obligations to either Athene Annuity and Life Co. or Athene Annuity & Life Assurance Company of New York, a highly risky private equity-controlled insurance company. The said agreement affected approximately 28,500 U.S.-based retirees and their beneficiaries, including Plaintiffs, who depended on Weyerhaeuser's promise to guarantee their pension benefits throughout retirement under an ERISA-governed Plan. Moreover, the Defendants did not select the safest annuity available or an annuity that would otherwise best promote the retirees' interests in ensuring the long-term security of their pension benefits, says the suit. Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Weyerhaeuser Company is a publicly traded, multinational Washington profit corporation. The company owns or controls some 10.5 million acres of timberlands in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. Sean E. Soyars, Esq. Kurt C. Struckhoff, Esq. Patrick R. Kutz, Esq. Terrence W. Scudieri, Jr., Esq. SCHLICHTER BOGARD LLP 100 South Fourth Street, Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 621-6115 Facsimile: (314) 621-5934 E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com ssoyars@uselaws.com kstruckhoff@uselaws.com pkutz@uselaws.com tscudieri@uselaws.com WHOOP INC: Sanderson Seeks to Seal Class Cert. Materials -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DONRICK SANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WHOOP, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05477-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order authorizing the sealing of certain materials being filed with Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff has reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). The materials that Plaintiff seeks to file under seal are identified in the below chart. Document Portion(s) Designating Entity and to Seal Reason(s) for Sealing Plaintiff's Reply Pages: 2, The material has been designated in Support of 12, 13 "CONFIDENTIAL" by Defendant Motion for Class Whoop, Inc. pursuant to the Certification Protective Order. Plaintiff therefore is not in a position to place this information in the public record. Exhibit 18 Entirety of The material has been designated Exhibit 18 "CONFIDENTIAL" by Defendant Whoop, Inc. pursuant to the Protective Order. Plaintiff therefore is not in a position to place this information in the public record. Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) permits a party to "provisionally file [a] document under seal, pending the Court's ruling on the motion to seal," including "any document a party ('Filing Party') seeks to seal because that document has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party (the 'Designating Party')." The information designated above has been designated as containing confidential information by counsel for Defendant Whoop, Inc. Plaintiff seeks to seal only those portions of the documents identified above that Defendant justifies for sealing pursuant to Civ. L. R. 79-5(c). For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the identified material above be provisionally filed under seal. WHOOP is an American wearable technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jet6s5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Stephen D. Andrews, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com stephen@dovel.com WILMINGTON, DE: Faces Akil Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper OT ------------------------------------------------------------- FAHEEM AKIL, ANTHONY BOWERS, TASHAWN COUNTS, MATTHEW HALL, ANDREA JANVIER, RANDALL NOWELL, GEORGE PIGFORD, MATTHEW ROSAIO, MALCOLM STODDARD, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF WILMINGTON, DELAWARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01377-UNA (D. Del., December 16, 2024) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act against Defendant, on behalf of Plaintiffs because of Defendant's unlawful deprivation of their rights to overtime compensation. The complaint alleges that Defendant misclassifies Plaintiffs as "exempt" employees and unlawfully fails to pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation at one and one-half time their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in 40 hours a week. Instead, the Defendant compensates Plaintiffs for only their regularly scheduled hours, regardless of whether Plaintiffs work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated individuals, work or have worked for the Defendant in the position of Police Captain. City of Wilmington is an incorporated municipality under the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Claiborne S. Newlin, Esq. MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN Legal Arts Building 1225 King Street, Suite 804 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 656-2308 Facsimile: (215) 790-0668 E-mail: cnewlin@markowitzandrichman.com - and - Lauren P. McDermott, Esq. Mark J. Murphy, Esq. MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C. 1920 L Street, NW, Ste 400 Washington, DC 20036 E-mail: lmcdermott@mooneygreen.com mmurphy@mooneygreen.com WPP GROUP: Polanco Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty -------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL POLANCO and MONIQUE JOHNSON, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the WPP Group USA, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan, Plaintiffs v. WPP GROUP USA, INC d/b/a WPP IT, and ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-09548 (S.D.N.Y., December 13, 2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the WPP Group USA, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan, for breach of fiduciary duties and for engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, instead of loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of Plan participants, the Defendants chose to use Plan assets exclusively to benefit WPP, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by using millions of dollars of Plan assets to offset WPP's obligations to make contributions to the Plan. To remedy these fiduciary breaches and ERISA violations, Plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, bring this action to enforce Defendants' personal liability under the law to make good to the Plan all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore to the Plans any profits made through Defendants' use of the Plan's assets. WPP Group USA, Inc. is a Delaware-incorporated company with its principal place of business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jenny M. Lewis, Esq. Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq. CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC 370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 299-6334 E-mail: jlewis@chirinoslawfirm.com tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com XTO ENERGY: Kriley Seeks Leave to Amend Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS KRILEY, et al., v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-00416-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to amend motion for class certification: The Amended Complaint alleges that the Class includes members who have royalties other than 15 percent (15%). Through a clerical error the 15 percent (15%) royalty provision from the Kriley lease was repeated in the Motion for Class Certification and in the Proposed Order. The Plaintiffs seek permission to file an Amended Motion for Class Certification, an Amended Proposed Order and an Amended Brief that contain the above, proper, language defining the Class as set forth in the Amended Complaint. The Defendant does not oppose the motion to amend the filed Motion for Class Certification. XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil principally operating in North America. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AqlTf8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David A. Borkovic, Esq. JONES, GREGG, CREEHAN & GERACE, LLP 411 Seventh Ave, Suite 1200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-6400 YARDI SYSTEMS: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.), Hon. Judge Robert Lasnik entered an order setting trial date and related dates as follows: Trial Date: Feb. 2, 2026 Motion for class certification due: Apr. 12, 2025 Deadline for joining additional parties: May 10, 2025 Deadline for amending pleadings: May 10, 2025 Reports from expert witnesses under Aug. 11, 2025 FRCP 26(a)(2) due: Discovery completed by: Oct. 8, 2025 Settlement conference held no later than: Sept. 22, 2025 Agreed pretrial order due: Jan. 5, 202 Yardi Systems is an investment, asset and property management software vendor for the real estate industry. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3a3g43 at no extra charge.[CC] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. 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 ***