/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250108.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, January 8, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 6
Headlines
1-800-FLOWERS INC: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. New York
24 HOUR FITNESS: Cruz Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
305 PLASTIC SURGERY: Pierce Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
3M COMPANY: Slater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
9199-4467 QUEBEC: Martirosyan Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ulrich Sues Over Falsely Advertised Claims
ABC LEGAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rinne Alleges
AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Forfeited 401(k) Funds
AMAZON.COM INC: Curtis Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Deboer Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Class Action Over HIPAA Violation
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Skourtis Says
ANNA JAQUES: Vitali-Charewicz Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
ANTHONY WILLS: Class Certification Denied in McCloud, et al Suit
APPLE INC: Settles Siri Privacy Class Action Suit for $95-Mil.
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Files Bid for Class Certification
BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden, et al Suit Dismissed Without PrejudiceBAN
BATTERY FUTURE: M&A Investigates Proposed Class Over Inc Merger
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cumalander Lawsuit
BOGLIOLI RETAIL: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: 4th Cir. Vacates Class Certification Order
BOYKIN FARMS: Lopez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
BRIDGE IT: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, Sako Suit Says
BYTE FEDERAL: Muriithi Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
C. PFEIFFER: Estrada's Bid to Certify Class Denied
CALIFORNIA: Cooper Files Writ of Habeas Corpus to Cal. Appeal Court
CBE COMPANIES: Call Center Reps Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Franci, et al Lawsuit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Suit Transferred to Calif. District Court
CHARLES W. SCHWAB: Court Refers Traudt Claims to Arbitration
CHC VI: Auto-Owners Insurance Entitled to Summary Judgment
CIRCLE K STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Callier Claims
COLBY BRAUN: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice in Glaum
CONNEXION POINT: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
CRIMSON WINE: Hacking Incident Targets Consumers' Info, Suit Says
CSL PLASMA: Court Dismisses Jacob Vacation Wage Class Action
DAVID ALLEN: Counsel Ordered to File Appearance by January 15
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Marchand Sues Over Massive Data Breach
DEXCOM INC: Court Consolidates Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
DIRECTTOU LLC: Hoang To's Bid for Class Settlement Approval Denied
DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Carter Files Suit in California State Court
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks to Decertify Vasquez Class Claims
ELLIS COUNTY: Court Dismisses Manning Lawsuit with Prejudice
ELON MUSK: Faces Alvarez Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Michigan
EVERYDAY DOSE: McGonigle Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Salaiz Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
GARDAWORLD CASH: Bid to Dismiss Artis, et al. Suit Denied as Moot
GETTY IMAGES: Holland Sues Over Improper Business Practices
GILMORE SERVICES: Halton Files Suit in California State Court
GITHUB INC: Doe Appeals Partial Dismissal of Lawsuit to 9th Cir.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Reply
GNC HOLDINGS: Wilkins Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
GOODHOPE HEALTHCARE: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Earned Wages
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Walker Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
HANCHETT PAPER: Chevry Files Labor Suit in California State Court
HAPPY GROUP: Files 9th Cir. Appeal of Order Staying Rusoff Case
HERSHEY CO: Beekman Sues Over PFAS on Chocolate Wrappers
HERSHEY CO: Court Issues Discovery Order in Loza, et al. Suit
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Bugaeva Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
HOME COMFORT: Faces Daniels Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOME DEPOT: Court Tosses Carbajal TUCSRA Class Action
JANSSEN INC: Court Approves Fluoroquinolone Class Settlement
KEVIN G. JOHNSON: Class Settlement in Colon, et al Suit Approved
KEYSTONE PACIFIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Suit Says
KINETIC CONTENT: Settles TV Series Class Suit Out of Court
LCPTRACKER INC: Mazmanian Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
LCPTRACKER INC: McGuinness Files Suit in C.D. California
LINDA STRUMPF: Hackshaw Balks at Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
LOWE'S HOME: Hern Files Fraud Suit in W.D. North Carolina
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Stays Discovery in McCrary Lawsuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chandler Suit Transferred to N.D. California
NANCY NAVARRETTA: Court Narrows Claims in Lindsay et, al. Lawsuit
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Monestier Appeals Gibson Suit Deal Approval
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Wang Appeals Final OK of Gibson Suit Deal
NESTLE USA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Falcone Suit to 9th Cir.
NEUEHEALTH INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With New Enterprise
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Pellettieri Sues Over Restrooms' Privacy Concerns
NS 360: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NUTRANEXT BUSINESS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
OUR TOWN HOSPITALITY: Valentine Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Silva Sues Over Improper Business Practices
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Cuellar Class Suit Over Robocalls
PERRIN BERNARD: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PHARMERICA LOGISTICS: Settlement in Berner Suit Denied Approval
PINTEREST INC: Court Tosses Davis's Copyright Infringement Claim
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Teamsters Funds Selected as Lead Plaintiff
REALNETWORKS: Plaintiff Must Submit Amended Complaint by Jan. 14
RED LIONS: Ardiles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
REGIONAL CARE: Cook Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
REGIONAL CARE: Nguyen Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
SABRE GLBL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Ethridge-Delucca Says
SAINT XAVIER: Faces LoBurgio Class Suit in N.D. Ill.
SCAN HEALTH PLAN: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SH RESIDENTIAL: Building Trades Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
SIX FLAGS: Labrake, et al Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SLEEP NUMBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Strain Alleges
SOUTHWEST COLORADO: Faces Howze Class Suit in Colorado Fed. Ct.
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Hill EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
SPORT SQUAD: Court Narrows Claims in Matus Class Action Lawsuit
STARBUCKS CORP: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lubin Case
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Circuit
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
STUBHUB INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kern, et al. Suit Granted
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Faces Castle Class Suit in D. Colorado
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Millunchick Settlement Plan of Allocation OK'd
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Settlement in Millunchick Suit Finally Approved
SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Class Action Settlement Approved
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: $32.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 14
TELEXFREE INC: Securities Class Cert Responses Extended to Jan. 9
TESLA INC: Appeal Filed in Tornetta Class Suit in Del. Sup.
TRIVEST: Motions to Compel in Hall, et al. Suit Granted in Part
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Brown Suit Alleges Deceptive Delivery Fees
UNITED STATES: Fails to Determine FOIA Requests, Mora Suit Alleges
VIVENDI TICKETING: Settlement Agreement Obtains Final Court Nod
VOBEV LLC: Committee Gets OK to Tap Alvarez as Financial Advisors
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Nixes Ruiz Breach of Contract Lawsuit
WARNER BROS: Feb. 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set in Zaslav Case
WELLS FARGO: Faces Kappes EFTA Suit in N.D. Calif.
*********
1-800-FLOWERS INC: Gonzalez Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1-800-FLOWERS, INC.
The case is styled as Gustavo Gonzalez, William Kane, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1-800-FLOWERS,
INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08894 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. -- https://www.1800flowers.com/ -- is a
floral and foods gift retailer and distribution company in the
United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elliot Jackson, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Ave., Ste. 610
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Email: ejackson@hedinllp.com
24 HOUR FITNESS: Cruz Files Employment Suit in Cal. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24 Hour Fitness USA,
LLC, et al. The case is captioned as BRUNO CRUZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA,
LLC, et al., Case No. CIVSB2433321 (Cal. Super. San Bernardino
Cty., November 4, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged employment
violations.
24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC is a fitness gym operator, doing business
in California. [BN]
305 PLASTIC SURGERY: Pierce Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 305 Plastic Surgery
Corp. The case is styled as Kelsea Pierce, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. 305 Plastic Surgery
Corp., Case No. 4:24-cv-09472-YGR (C.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
305 Plastic Surgery -- https://305plasticsurgery.com/ -- provide
plastic surgery results to clients that travel both throughout the
United States and abroad.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
3M COMPANY: Slater Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Slater, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.;
CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER
SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL
COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No.
2:24-cv-06211-RMG (D.S.C., Oct. 28, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals
collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS").
PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid
("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related
chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist
biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in
people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air,
and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire
suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to
extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS,
PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are
persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the
environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and
safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.
Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the
human body while presenting significant health risks to humans.
Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required
to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades
by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in
training and in response to Class B fires.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff,
and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate
for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing,
reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in
connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as
a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various
locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive,
equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training in the United States Navy.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq.
THE FERRARO LAW FIRM
600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
Phone (305) 375-0111
Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com
james@ferrarolaw.com
9199-4467 QUEBEC: Martirosyan Files Fraud Suit in C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 9199-4467 Quebec Inc.
The case is captioned as MARAT MARTIROSYAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. 9199-4467 QUEBEC INC.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-09557-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal., November 5, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged fraud violations.
9199-4467 Quebec Inc. is an import company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valter Malkhasyan, Esq.
MALK POGO LAW GROUP, LLP
1241 South Glendale Avenue, Suite 204
Glendale, CA 91205
Telephone: (818) 351-6611
(818) 484-5204
Email: valter@malkpogolaw.com
erik@malkpogolaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Ulrich Sues Over Falsely Advertised Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irvin Jackson, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that the
manufacturers of Similac and PediaSure face a class action lawsuit
from parents, alleging that popular "toddler milk" products that
are marketed as essential for children over one year old, are
actually nutritionally unnecessary and exploit parental concerns
about child development.
The complaint was filed by Max Ulrich and Ryan Schavrien in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
December 26, naming Abbott Laboratories as the defendant, and
seeking class action status to represent purchasers of PediaSure
and Similac nationwide.
Specifically, the claim notes that the products at issue are
Similac "Go & Grow" and PediaSure "Grow & Gain," which are both
marketed toward toddlers 12 months old or older. While the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration has established nutritional and
labeling standards for infant formula, these regulations apply only
to products intended for children under 12 months of age.
Plaintiffs argue that this results not only in children consuming
products of questionable nutritional value, but also states that
Abbott Laboratories adds sugar and other unhealthy ingredients in
its toddler milk products.
The lawsuit comes as Abbott already faces a growing number of
Similac lawsuits over claims that the products increase the risk of
premature infants developing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), which
is a devastating condition that occurs when an infant's intestinal
tissue becomes inflamed and dies, resulting in the need for
emergency surgery and often ending in the infant's death.
This latest toddler milk class action lawsuit accuses Abbott
Laboratories of taking advantage of parents' desire to provide
healthy food options for their children, but as a result, pulls
them away from breast milk and other options scientifically proven
to be nutritional.
"To convince parents that 'toddler milk' was a legitimate and
beneficial product, manufacturers marketed it in the same way as
they had marketed infant formula before the FDA stepped in: as a
healthy choice. That false marketing continues today, unchecked,"
the lawsuit states. "The drinks' primary ingredients -- sugar, corn
syrup, vegetable oils, and highly processed carbohydrates -- render
Abbott's health marketing claims dangerously false. While this is
true for all children Abbott targets, it is particularly egregious
for children under the age of two, given the medical consensus that
children this young should not consume any added sugars."
The lawsuit claims Abbott places false and misleading claims on the
very front labels, intentionally misrepresenting the nutritional
value of the products to parents.
These misleading statements include claims about the products'
nutritional value, and the alleged support of pediatricians,
according to the complaint. It notes that pediatricians have
primarily placed breast milk far above toddler milk products in
nutritional value.
Although neither Ulrich nor Schavrien claim their children were
harmed by Similac or PediaSure, they state that they would not have
repeatedly purchased the products over the years had the labeling
and advertising been truthful.
The two men present claims of breach of warranty, unjust enrichment
and violations of California advertising, consumer legal remedy and
unfair competition laws. They seek compensation for themselves and
other parents or caregivers who purchased either product.
Numerous studies have highlighted the importance of breastfeeding
or human milk products for babies, which have been found to deliver
the necessary nutrients a newborn needs to thrive, provide some key
immunities already developed by the mother, and help the infant's
digestive tract develop. However, research has also regularly shown
cow's milk-based baby formula products do not confer the same
benefits as breastfeeding. [GN]
ABC LEGAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Rinne Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
KAYLEE RINNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ABC LEGAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02161 (W.D. Wash., Dec. 30, 2024) is a class action on
behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health
Information ("PHI" and collectively "Private Information") that was
impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on
December 6, 2024 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach").
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed
Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and
necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe
and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited,
collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private
Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or
maintain adequate security practices.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and
notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial
losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or
diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the
Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing
identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information.
ABC Legal Services, Inc. provides commercial services. The Company
offers court filing, messenger and document retrieval,
investigation, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 1700
Seattle, WA 98101-3147
Telephone (206) 682-5600
Facsimile (206) 682-2992
Email: kboyd@tousley.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Forfeited 401(k) Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Morton, writing for Value Added Resource, reports that Amazon
is facing a proposed class action alleging the company violated
federal law by using nearly $350 million in forfeited 401(k) funds
to offset their own contributions rather than to reduce
administrative fees for over 20,000 participants.
The suit filed in Seattle federal court by employee Cory Curtis in
December 2024 accuses Amazon of self-dealing and violating its
duties of loyalty and prudence under the federal Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, which governs employee benefit
plans.
Participants in Amazon's 401(k) plan become fully vested and
entitled to matching contributions from the company after three
years of service, but between 2018 and 2023, plan participants who
did not fully vest forfeited about $349 million in matching funds,
according to the complaint.
But instead of allocating that money to cover over $18 Million in
administrative fees for the plan during that period, Amazon used
the funds to reduce its own matching contributions.
While reducing matching contributions is apparently one of the uses
allowed by the plan's terms, Curtis argues the Fiduciaries who
exercised discretion and control over the plan's assets were
legally required to act solely in the interests of the
participants, thus the funds should have been used to benefit those
participants rather than Amazon.
The Plan document gives the Plan Fiduciaries discretion to use Plan
assets that have been forfeited by Plan participants for one of
three purposes: (i) reduce future matching contributions; (ii) pay
Plan administrative expenses; or (iii) restore forfeited accounts.
When making the decision regarding the use of Plan forfeitures, the
Plan Fiduciaries have been and are required by 29 U.S. Code § 1104
to discharge [their] duties with respect to a plan solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering
the plan.
Accordingly, as explicitly provided in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(34), the
Plan Fiduciaries also had the discretion to allocate "forfeiture of
accounts of other participants" to Plan Participants. . .
The Plan document gives the Plan Fiduciaries discretion to use Plan
assets that have been forfeited by Plan participants for one of
three purposes: (i) reduce future matching contributions; (ii) pay
Plan administrative expenses; or (iii) restore forfeited accounts.
When making the decision regarding the use of Plan forfeitures, the
Plan Fiduciaries have been and are required by 29 U.S. Code § 1104
to discharge [their] duties with respect to a plan solely in the
interest of the participants and beneficiaries and for the
exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and their
beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering
the plan.
Accordingly, as explicitly provided in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(34), the
Plan Fiduciaries also had the discretion to allocate "forfeiture of
accounts of other participants" to Plan Participants. . .
. . . As described in detail above, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants (Plan Fiduciaries) exercised discretion over, and
control of, Plan assets and consistently and reflexively chose to
use the forfeitures for their own interest, to the detriment of the
Plan and Plan Participants, by allocating Plan forfeitures toward
reducing the Company's outstanding and unpaid contributions owing
to the Plan.
All else being equal, had the Plan Fiduciaries decided throughout
the Class period to use Plan forfeitures to defray the reasonable
expense of administering the Plan or allocated the Plan forfeitures
back to eligible participants, the value of the Plan and the value
of the accounts of the Plan participants would have been greater
thereby providing greater retirement benefits to Plan
Participants.
The lawsuit seeks certification of a nationwide class of Amazon
401(k) participants as well as an order requiring Amazon to make
good all losses to the Plan resulting from each violation of ERISA
and to remove Fiduciaries who have breached their duties while
enjoining them from future ERISA violations.
The case is Curtis v. Amazon.com, U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, No. 2:24-cv-02164.As described in
detail above, throughout the Class Period, Defendants (Plan
Fiduciaries) exercised discretion over, and control of, Plan assets
and consistently and reflexively chose to use the forfeitures for
their own interest, to the detriment of the Plan and Plan
Participants, by allocating Plan forfeitures toward reducing the
Company's outstanding and unpaid contributions owing to the Plan.
All else being equal, had the Plan Fiduciaries decided throughout
the Class period to use Plan forfeitures to defray the reasonable
expense of administering the Plan or allocated the Plan forfeitures
back to eligible participants, the value of the Plan and the value
of the accounts of the Plan participants would have been greater
thereby providing greater retirement benefits to Plan
Participants.
The lawsuit seeks certification of a nationwide class of Amazon
401(k) participants as well as an order requiring Amazon to make
good all losses to the Plan resulting from each violation of ERISA
and to remove Fiduciaries who have breached their duties while
enjoining them from future ERISA violations.
The case is Curtis v. Amazon.com, U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, No. 2:24-cv-02164. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Curtis Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amazon.com Inc. The
case is styled as Cory Curtis, individually, on behalf of the
Amazon 401(k) Savings Plan and on behalf of all similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan v. Amazon.com Inc.,
Administrative Committee of Amazon.com Inc 401(k) Savings Plan,
John and Jane Does 1-30, in their capacities as members of the
Administrative Committee, Case No. 2:24-cv-02164-RSM (W.D. Wash.,
Dec. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Recovery of
Benefits to Employee.
Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon --
https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology
company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising,
digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 N 34th St, Ste. 300
Seattle, WA 98103-8869
Phone: (206) 816-6603
Fax: (206) 319-5450
Email: jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Deboer Files Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Addiction
Centers, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Deboer, James Bouchereau,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
OrthopedicsNY, LLP, Case No. 3:24-cv-01510 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 30,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
American Addiction Centers (AAC) --
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/ -- is a Brentwood,
Tennessee–based, publicly traded for-profit addiction treatment
chain.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
468 N Camden Dr, Ste 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4562
Phone: 213-474-3800
Fax: 213-471-4160
Email: daniel@slfla.com
- and -
R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq.
Sonjay Singh, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
4780 I-55 North, Suite 100
Jackson, MS 39211
Phone: (601) 274-4252
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: spietrowski@sirillp.com
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Class Action Over HIPAA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan of Robinson & Cole LLP, writing for The
National Law Review, reports that American Addiction Centers Inc.
faces a class action in the Middle District of Tennessee for
allegations that it violated the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) by failing to protect patient data from
cyber criminals.
In September 2024, American Addiction Centers suffered a
cyber-attack that led to the unauthorized access to sensitive
personal information and protected health information of over
420,000 individuals. The information included names, Social
Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth,
medical information, and health insurance information. The
regulatory and individual notifications were provided on or about
December 23, 2024; the class action was filed only a few days
later.
The class members allege that they face the threat of identity
theft and misuse of their data by cyber criminals. The lawsuit
includes claims of negligence, unjust enrichment, and breach of
implied contract, as well as monetary and injunctive relief. [GN]
AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Skourtis Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIKOLAOS SKOURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01514 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 30, 2024) is a
class action on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with
sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health
information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant
publicly disclosed on November 2024 (the "Data Breach" or the
"Breach").
According to the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class
Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to
keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from
unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and
derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its
duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security
practices.
As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and
notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class
Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries
including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private
Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private
Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated
with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal
and financial information.
American Addiction Centers, Inc. is a diversified company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, is involved in businesses that
include behavioral healthcare, intervention services, drug and
alcohol rehabilitation, pain management, physical therapy, finance,
and thoroughbred breeding and racing. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Grayson Wells, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
The Freedom Center
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
gwells@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
ANNA JAQUES: Vitali-Charewicz Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anna Jaques Hospital.
The case is styled as Milena Vitali-Charewicz, individually and on
Behalf of All others similarly situated v. Anna Jaques Hospital,
Case No. 2477CV01350 (Mass. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., Dec. 26,
2024).
The case type is stated as "Torts."
Anna Jaques Hospital -- https://ajh.org/ -- offers primary care,
emergency care, and more to residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
ANTHONY WILLS: Class Certification Denied in McCloud, et al Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as PETER J. MCCLOUD, Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY
WILLS, MAJOR ROWAN, LT. ROYSTER, C/O KIEFER, SANDY WALKER, ANTHONY
JONES, JOSHUA SHOENBECK, ANGIE CRAINE, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2,
and MARGARET MADOLE, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-1802-NJR (S.D.
Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied McCloud's motion
for class certification.
Plaintiff Peter J. McCloud, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections who is currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. In the Complaint, McCloud
alleges that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of
confinement, denied pain medication, and served food with bugs in
it.
This case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A. Under Section 1915A,
the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A(a). Any portion of
a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages
from a defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be
dismissed.
McCloud seeks to bring his lawsuit on behalf of all inmates at
Menard who have faced unconstitutional conditions of confinement,
denial of medical care, and repeated use of force with mace. To be
certified as a class, McCloud must first satisfy the four elements
in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a): numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy of representation. Then, the case must
fall under one of the conditions specified in Rule 23(b). In this
case, McCloud includes claims that are only specific to him. He
alleges that Kiefer used excessive force on him, that Angie Craine
denied him medical care, and that he was denied due process
protections.
These claims are not suitable for a class action, the Court finds.
According to the Court, McCloud also cannot satisfy the element of
adequacy of representation because as a nonlawyer, he cannot
represent the other potential members of the class. McCloud
acknowledges that he cannot represent the potential members but
asks that counsel be assigned to represent the proposed class
action. But there is no right to the appointment of counsel in
civil matters. And the Court finds that McCloud is capable of
representing himself on his own, individual claims at this stage.
Thus, his request for class certification is denied, the Court
concludes.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gVkrZB from PacerMonitor.com.
APPLE INC: Settles Siri Privacy Class Action Suit for $95-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Smalley, writing for The Record, reports that Apple has
agreed to pay $95 million to settle a proposed class-action lawsuit
asserting that it violated users' privacy by allowing its
voice-activated Siri feature to record device owners' conversations
and then share them with third parties, including company
contractors and advertisers.
The settlement agreement, filed Tuesday, December 31, stemmed from
a July 2019 report in The Guardian which cited an anonymous
whistleblower who reported that Apple had been recording and
sharing conversations, including those taped when device owners
unintentionally engaged Siri.
The Guardian reported that Apple contractors "regularly" listened
to the recordings, including "where there has been no utterance of
a wake phrase ["Hey Siri"] or other device interaction," according
to the complaint.
The conversations included "confidential conversations between
doctors and patients, business deals, seemingly criminal dealings,
sexual encounters and so on," The Guardian reported.
The recordings are "accompanied by user data showing location,
contact details and app data," The Guardian report said. The
proposed class action lawsuit was filed a month after the
whistleblower's account was published.
Apple did not respond to a request for comment and has issued no
press release on the settlement. The company denied wrongdoing as a
settlement term.
The tech giant acknowledged the practice to The Guardian in 2019
but said that "user requests are not associated with the user's
Apple ID. Siri responses are analysed in secure facilities and all
reviewers are under the obligation to adhere to Apple's strict
confidentiality requirements."
Plaintiffs in the case said their statements to Siri triggered
targeted advertising, according to Reuters, which reported that
mentions of Air Jordan sneakers and Olive Garden restaurants led
them to receive ads for the brands. Another plaintiff, Reuters
said, received ads for a specific type of surgical treatment after
asking his doctor about it.
Apple has long touted its commitment to privacy, a fact which the
complaint seizes on, noting that the company even used Siri to
obfuscate its privacy practices.
"If an individual were to ask Siri 'Hey Siri, are you always
listening' Siri is programmed to respond: 'I only listen when
you're talking to me,'" the complaint said.
Tens of millions of class members will receive as much as $20 for
each Siri-enabled device they own, according to the settlement
agreement.
Apple reported a net income of nearly $94 billion in the most
recent fiscal year. [GN]
AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Schultz Files Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jennifer Schultz, an
individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
v. Avenue5 Residential, LLC, a foreign limited liability company,
Case No. 2:23-cv-00088-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification on
behalf of:
(1) All persons;
(2) Who rented any property in Washington State
(3) Where Avenue was the "landlord of the rental property, as
defined by RCW RCW 59.18.230(16)
(4) Who signed any lease agreement;
(5) Where the lease agreement contained provisions prohibited by
the RLTA.
The Subclass A
(1) Those individuals that meet the requirements for all
class
Members above; and
(2) Who were required to pay any amounts for late fees
imposed
Before five days has passed since the rent was due, for
pest control charges (excluding those in a single-family
dwelling), for a service fee imposed for notice served
under RCW 59.12, et seq., or RCW 59.18, et seq, and/or
for
attorney's fees and costs that were not allowed under
the
RLTA.
The case centers around illegal lease provisions, which are
outlined in RCW 59.18.230.
The Plaintiff Jennifer Schultz seeks to represent a class of
tenants and former tenants of Defendant Avenue5 Residential, LLC's
Washington state-managed residential rental properties, all of whom
signed lease agreements containing provisions that are alleged to
violate Washington's Residential Landlord Tenant Act and/or
Washington's Consumer Protection Act.
Avenue5 Residential is a property management company that provides
apartment search, rental, leasing, and housing services.
Ms. Schultz is a former of The River House at the Trail Head
apartment complex, which is managed by Avenue5.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TqytXK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shayne J. Sutherland, Esq.
CAMERON SUTHERLAND, PLLC
905 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 404
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 315-4507
E-mail: ssutherland@cameronsutherland.com
- and –
Christopher M. Hogue, Esq.
HOGUE LAW FIRM
905 W. Riverside Ave., Ste 402
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 934-1998
E-mail: chris@spokaneadvocate.com
BANK OF NEW YORK: Walden, et al Suit Dismissed Without PrejudiceBAN
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted Bank of New
York Mellon Corporation and BNY Mellon, N.A.'s motion to dismiss
the case captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; Plaintiffs, vs. THE
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON, N.A., Defendants,
Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-01972-CBB (W.D. Pa.) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
This putative class action was initiated in this Court on December
21, 2020, by Plaintiffs Stephen and Leslie Walden, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, against Defendants Bank of
New York Mellon Corporation and BNY Mellon, N.A. The Waldens
generally assert breach of contract claims and claims under the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73
P.S. Secs. 201-1 et seq. in connection with investment management
services BNY Mellon provided to the Waldens as a fiduciary and the
putative class under investment management agreements.
The Waldens allege that BNY Mellon breached the investment
management agreements and violated the UTPCPL by failing to
disclose certain conflicts of interest involved with BNY Mellon
investing the Waldens' funds in BNY Mellon-affiliated mutual funds.
BNY Mellon seeks dismissal on the basis that the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(f)(1) bars
the putative class claims.
SLUSA bars state-law based class claims that allege a
misrepresentation or omission of material fact that is made "in
connection with the purchase or sale" of a covered security.
BNY Mellon argues the Waldens' claim that BNY Mellon failed to
fully disclose conflicts when it bought affiliate products in its
discretionary customer accounts was an "omission of material fact"
and therefore barred under SLUSA.
The Waldens maintain they did not make decisions regarding specific
securities transactions and delegated investment decisions to BNY
to manage their investments. They therefore argue the nondisclosure
of conflicts was not made in connection with the sale or purchase
of the mutual funds and was not material to a decision by the
Waldens to buy or sell securities. BNY Mellon disagrees and argues
that the undisclosed conflicts of interest when buying affiliated
mutual funds is necessarily in connection with the purchase or sale
of a covered security.
The Court finds BNY Mellon is correct that the Waldens' claim
involves an omission of material fact under SLUSA. Failing to
disclose a conflict of interest is a material omission under SLUSA
and further serves as the factual predicate of the Waldens' breach
of contract and UTPCPL claims. Accordingly, the Waldens' claims
involve an omission of material fact and this requirement is met.
The Waldens' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The pending
motion for class certification will be denied as moot, as is the
deferred ruling on summary judgment on entitlement to disgorged
fees.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q3O9os from PacerMonitor.com.
BATTERY FUTURE: M&A Investigates Proposed Class Over Inc Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Battery Future Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: BFAC), relating to the
proposed merger with Class Over, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Class Over has been given an enterprise value of
approximately $135 million.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/battery-future-acquisition-corp-bfac/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Retail Opportunity Investments Corp. (Nasdaq: ROIC), relating
to its proposed merger with Blackstone. Under the terms of the
agreement, Blackstone Real Estate Partners X will acquire all
outstanding common shares of ROIC for $17.50 per share in an
all-cash transaction.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/retail-opportunity-investments-roic/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Innovid Corp. (NYSE: CTV), relating to the proposed merger
with Mediaocean LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Mediaocean
will acquire Innovid at a price of $3.15 per share of common
stock.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/innovid-corp-ctv/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Evergreen Corporation (Nasdaq: EVGR), relating to its proposed
merger with Forekast Limited. Under the terms of the agreement,
Forekast shares will automatically be converted into the right to
receive a number of Evergreen shares.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/evergreen-corporation/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
Monteverde & Associates PC Logo
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Loses Bid to Dismiss Cumalander Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Travis R. McDonough of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied BlueCross
BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc.'s motion to dismiss and strike class
allegations in the case captioned as WILLIAM CUMALANDER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:24-cv-176 (E.D. Tenn.).
In September 2022, Plaintiff William Cumalander was diagnosed with
prostate cancer. Plaintiff's physician, Dr. William Mendenhall,
recommended that the Plaintiff undergo Proton Beam Radiation
Therapy at the University of Florida Proton Therapy Institute. The
Plaintiff was insured through the Defendant and requested approval
to use PBRT to treat his prostate cancer. The Defendant denied the
Plaintiff's request for benefits for PBRT treatment because, per
the Defendant's PBRT Medical Policy, using PBRT to treat prostate
cancer is an "investigational" treatment. The Plaintiff went ahead
with PBRT, paying $43,185.00 out of pocket. His treatment was
successful in treating his prostate cancer and he experienced few
if any toxicities from PBRT.
The Plaintiff's insurance plan provides that a treatment that fails
to meet four criteria is considered "investigational." The
Plaintiff claims that all four criteria are met for PBRT to treat
prostate cancer and therefore should be covered under the terms of
the Plan.
On July 20, 2023, the Plaintiff filed his putative class action
complaint in the Eastern District of North Carolina. He asserts two
causes of action pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 et seq. for: (1) wrongful denial
of benefits, and (2) breach of fiduciary duty. He seeks a variety
of remedies including: (1) payment of health benefits owed under
the plan, (2) an injunction requiring reprocessing of all
wrongfully denied claims, and (3) disgorgement of profits Defendant
made as a result of wrongfully denying claims for PBRT.
The Plaintiff further seeks to represent a class consisting of: All
persons covered under ERISA-governed plans, administered or insured
by BCBSTN, whose pre-service or post-service requests to BCBSTN for
benefits for proton beam radiation therapy for the treatment of
prostate cancer were denied at any time within the applicable
statute of limitations, or whose requests to BCBSTN for PBRT will
be denied in the future, based upon a determination by BCBTN that
PBRT is not medically necessary or is experimental,
investigational, or unproven.
The Plaintiff alleges that the definition of an "investigational"
treatment is "the same or substantially similar" across all plans.
On June 18, 2024, the Defendant moved to partially dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims and strike the Plaintiff's class allegations. It
argues that the Plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim is
barred as a matter of law. It further argues that Plaintiff is
barred from seeking disgorgement of profits. Finally, the Defendant
asks that the Court strike Plaintiff's class allegations because
the proposed class cannot satisfy Rule 23(b)'s commonality
requirement, and the remedy of reprocessing of claims is not
available in ERISA class actions.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
In this case, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's injury can
be fully remedied by recovering benefits and therefore his
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim must be dismissed. The Court
disagrees. Because the Plaintiff seeks both individual damages and
plan-wide injunctive relief for the proposed class, the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim
will be denied.
Disgorgement of Profits
Because the Court cannot say with certainty at this early phase
that the Plaintiff will be made whole through recovery of
wrongfully denied benefits, it is not appropriate to dismiss
Plaintiff's disgorgement of profits remedy at this time. Because it
is not certain at the motion-to-dismiss phase that the Plaintiff
will be made whole by awarding him wrongly denied benefits, the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
disgorgement-of-profits remedy will be denied with leave to refile,
the Court concludes.
Motion to Strike Class Allegations
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's class allegations should
be struck because Plaintiff cannot establish commonality. It
further argues that class-wide reprocessing of claims is not an
available remedy in an ERISA class action as a matter of law. The
Court sees no reason why a single injunction remanding the class
members' claims for reprocessing does not constitute "final relief"
in an ERISA proceeding. Because class-wide reprocessing is an
available remedy, the Defendant's motion to strike on this basis
will be denied.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=En1j8u from PacerMonitor.com.
BOGLIOLI RETAIL: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BOGLIOLI RETAIL CORP., Case No. 1:24-cv-10009
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought this civil rights action
against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.bogliolimilano.com/us/en/, including all portions
thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or
"Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
BOGLIOLI RETAIL CORP., operates the Boglioli Milano online retail
store, as well as the Boglioli Milano 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.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS: 4th Cir. Vacates Class Certification Order
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as ROBERT E. STAFFORD, JR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; MELISSA BONETTI, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; HERBERT
MALLET, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated;
JACQUELINE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated; CATHRINE ALLEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; DEVRON JONES, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated; TABITHA DANIEL, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; LAQUASHA OSAGHEE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; RONDA COLE, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs –
Appellees, v. BOJANGLES' RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant –
Appellant, No. 23-2287 (4th Cir.), Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III,
Nicole G. Berner and Brendan A. Hurson of the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the certification order
and remanded the matter to the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.
Bojangles' Restaurants, Inc. is a southern-style fast-food chain.
In 2020, the company owned and operated 311 restaurant locations
across eight states.
The present case arises from a series of allegations that Bojangles
systematically violated its own policies, requiring shift managers
to work off the clock, and sometimes even editing these employees'
time records to avoid exceeding state and federal overtime
thresholds.
Named plaintiff Richard Stafford was an hourly-paid shift manager
at Bojangles. After being fired in 2020, Stafford filed suit
against Bojangles under the FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act, claiming that the company frequently required him to stay
on the premises, on duty, after closing to clean up and close down
the restaurant while off the clock, did not compensate him for the
time spent driving between different restaurants for work-related
activities, and, as a result, failed to pay him the correct amount
of overtime wages. He alleged that his experiences were part of a
systematic effort by Bojangles to artificially suppress their labor
costs to stay within specified labor budgets.
On Nov. 2, 2020, the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina conditionally certified a collective
action for shift managers' FLSA claims under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).
With the gates thus open, the claims against Bojangles rapidly
accumulated. By April 2022, nearly 550 individuals had joined the
collective action.
On April 15, 2022, Stafford filed a second amended complaint, which
added new named plaintiffs and sought class certification of
various state wage-and-hour law claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3). The Plaintiffs proposed classes for North
Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee,
and Virginia.
The district court denied certification of the Alabama, Georgia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia classes on the basis that the
proposed class representatives could not fairly and adequately
protect the interest of the class as required by Rule 23(a)(4). It
did, however, find that the proposed North Carolina and South
Carolina classes met Rule 23(a) and (b)(3)'s requirements for
numerosity, commonality, and predominance, and that proposed class
representatives had claims typical of the class and would fairly
and adequately advocate for class interests.
On Nov. 3, 2023, Bojangles petitioned for permission to appeal the
certification order, contending that the district court erred in
applying Rule 23's commonality and predominance analysis.
The Fourth Circuit reviews the district court's certification of a
class under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
In this case, the putative class is too overinclusive to ensure
commonality, the Fourth Circuit finds. Firstly, the Circuit Judges
explain that some class members may lack any off-the-clock or
time-shaving claim against Bojangles, and thus no question of law
or fact is common with these individuals. Secondly, even assuming
all class members have some legitimate state-law claim, the
district court still did not specify what type of factual claims
fall within the ambit of the class definition. Thus, in the absence
of more precise class parameters, they cannot assure ourselves that
the classes meet Rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. Furthermore,
because the composition of claims is unknown, we cannot know that
common questions predominate over individualized ones, as required
under Rule 23(b)(3).
Overly general class definitions also threaten the assurance that
class members will receive fair and adequate representation,
according to the Fourth Circuit.
The Circuit Judges hold that the district court abused its
discretion in certifying this class action because it employed an
inappropriately high level of generality when (1) identifying the
policies which allegedly unify prospective class members'
wide-ranging claims, and (2) creating overly broad class
definitions. These errors cut to the core of the district court's
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) analyses, and we thus vacate the
certification order and remand to the district court.
A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gCXL82
BOYKIN FARMS: Lopez Suit Seeks to Certify Classes & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CRISTOBAL LOPEZ LOPEZ and
GILBERTO FLORES LOZANO, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons, v. BOYKIN FARMS, INC., RHODES FARMING,
LLC, WILLIE C. BOYKIN, III, MATTHEW Z. RHODES, TONY D. LEE, d/b/a
LEE AND SONS FARMS, TONY CAMERON LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, and
CLINT LEE, d/b/a LEE AND SONS FARMS, Case No. 5:22-cv-00491-BO-RN
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying three Classes and three Subclasses pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and approving
notice to the members of the Class.
The proposed Classes and Subclasses are as follows:
The Plaintiffs define the 2020 Contract Class as:
"All individuals who worked for one or more of the Defendants
pursuant to the Defendants' April 2020 H-2A Contract."
The Plaintiffs define the 2021 Contract Class as:
"All individuals who worked for one or more of the Defendants
pursuant to the April 2021 H-2A Contract."
The Plaintiffs define the NCWHA Class as:
"All individuals who were employed or jointly employed by the
Defendant Lee and Sons Farms on an H-2A visa at any time
between
Dec. 2, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2022 and who were not paid the
promised
wage for one or more workweeks."
The Plaintiffs also seek to certify three subclasses of the NCWHA
Class.
The Plaintiffs define the subclasses as:
Piece-Rate Subclass:
"All NCWHA Class members who were paid by the piece which
resulted
in pay below the promised wage for one or more workweek."
Reimbursement Subclass:
"All NCWHA Class Members who worked in 2021 and were paid less
than the promised wage in the first workweek because they were
not
reimbursed for their inbound transportation expenses in their
first paycheck."
Mealplan Subclass:
"All NCWHA Class Members who were required to purchase a weekly
meal plan which brought their weekly pay below the promised
age."
Boykin is a family-owned agricultural business based in Wilson, NC,
specializing in the cultivation and distribution of a variety of
crops.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 26, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=inS6qX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
Raleigh, NC 27611
Telephone: (919)856-2144
Facsimile: (919)856-2175
E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
clermont@ncjustice.org
- and -
Jonathan Wall, Esq.
HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC
301 n. Elm St., Suite 800
Greensboro, NC 27401
Telephone: (336) 273-1600
Facsimile: (336) 274-4650
E-mail: jwall@greensborolaw.com
BRIDGE IT: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Messages, Sako Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALIHADJ SAKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRIDGE IT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-08272-AT (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant placed text messages to
residential telephone numbers in an attempt to promote products or
services without prior express consent. The Plaintiff and similarly
situated consumers suffered actual harm as a result of the
Defendant's misconduct including intrusion upon seclusion, invasion
of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily
life.
Bridge IT, Inc. is a software company, headquartered in New York,
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (813) 340-8838
Email: zane@jibraellaw.com
BYTE FEDERAL: Muriithi Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Olive Muriithi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BYTE FEDERAL, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-03009 (M.D. Fla.,
Dec. 30, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in
the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.
As part of its business, Defendant obtained and stored the personal
information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession
and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information,
Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The
Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff
and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect
their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access,
acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate,
release, steal, misuse, and/or view it.
On November 18, 2024, Defendant detected suspicious activity on its
computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent
forensic investigation, Defendant determined that cybercriminals
infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and
thereby gained access to its data files (the "Data Breach"). The
investigation further determined that, through this infiltration,
cybercriminals potentially accessed and copied files containing the
sensitive personal information of 58,000 individuals.
According to the letter received by Plaintiff, the personally
identifiable information ("PII") accessed by cybercriminals
included, but is not limited to, names, dates of birth, addresses,
phone numbers, Social Security numbers, government-issued IDs,
transaction information, and photographs of users (collectively,
"Personal Information").
The Defendant's misconduct--failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members'
Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach,
failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach,
failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal
Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of
the Data Breach—caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff
and Class members across the United States, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff are victims of the Data Breach and are domiciled
across the United States.
The Defendant is a US-based company that operates a network of
Bitcoin ATMs, develops digital asset software, and provides
training and support for the Bitcoin ecosystem.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
C. PFEIFFER: Estrada's Bid to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, v.
C. PFEIFFER, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order adopting findings and
recommendations as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations issued April 9, 2024, are
adopted in full.
2. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, and
plaintiff's
motion to certify class are denied.
3. The findings and recommendations issued May 22, 2024 are
adopted
in full, and this case is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)
and Local Rule 302, this Court has conducted a de novo review in
this case.
Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings
and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper
analysis. Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, is
denied as premature.
The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is also denied.
On April 9, 2024, the plaintiff was given the opportunity to file
an amended complaint and was warned that failure to timely file an
amended complaint may result in dismissal.
The Plaintiff again had the opportunity to object to the findings
and recommendations issued on May 22, 2024, which recommended
dismissal of the complaint, but plaintiff has failed to do so.
The Plaintiff Estrada, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has
filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 27, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=seR3xF at no extra
charge.[CC]
CALIFORNIA: Cooper Files Writ of Habeas Corpus to Cal. Appeal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Gregory Cooper, Jr. filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus in the lawsuit styled In re Gregory Cooper, Jr. on Habeas
Corpus, Case No. CR2401158 (Cal. Super., Humboldt Cty., November 4,
2024).
The case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate
District. [BN]
CBE COMPANIES: Call Center Reps Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SCHLICHER, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. CBE COMPANIES, INC. Case No. 2:24-cv-01035
(N.D. Iowa, Nov. 5, 2024) seeks to recover for the Defendant's
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and alleged
contractual obligations (or unjust enrichment if no contract is
found), and other appropriate rules, regulations, statutes, and
ordinances.
The case is a collective and class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated current and/or former
Customer Service Representative, Customer Service Representative
– Fraud, First Party Collections Representative, Collections
Associate, and/or other job titles performing the same or similar
job duties (Call Center Representatives) employees of Defendant.
The Plaintiff contends that the rights of the Breach of Contract
Class were violated and seeks to recover an award of unpaid wages
and overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which he and the
putative Collective and Class may be entitled.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Customer Service
Representative and later a Fraud Team Leader from March 2022 to
March 2024.
The Defendant employs Customer Service Representative, Customer
Service Representative - Fraud, First Party Collections
Representative, Collections Associate, and/or other job titles
performing the same or similar job duties nationwide.
The Defendant provides accounts receivable management services and
contact center solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Leonard Bates, Esq.
NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
3900 Ingersoll Ave, Suite 201
Des Moines, IA 50312
Telephone: 515-883-2000
Facsimile: 515-883-2000
E-mail: lbates@newkirklaw.com
- and -
Rusch, Esq.
Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
Saint Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com
CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Franci, et al Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable William S. Stickman IV of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Chambers
Development Company, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as
FRANK FRANCI and RANDY BUMBAUGH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHAMBERS DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-800 (W.D. Pa.)
Chambers is a Delaware corporation which owns and operates a solid
waste landfill located at 600 Thomas Street, Monroeville,
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs are individuals who own and reside on
property in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. They brought this action
individually and on behalf of "all owners/occupants and renters of
residential property within one mile of the Landfill property
boundary." There are around 2,700 residences within the class area.
Chambers is a Delaware corporation which owns and operates the
Landfill.
Plaintiffs, Frank Franci and Randy Bumbaugh, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, brought this action
against Defendant Chambers Development Company, Inc. in the Court
of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Chambers removed
the action to this Court.
The Plaintiffs allege at Count I that Chambers intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly, and/or negligently created a private
nuisance that substantially and unreasonably interfered with the
Plaintiffs' property. At Count II, the Plaintiffs allege that
Chambers' substantial and unreasonable interference with the
Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property arises from a
public nuisance, from which the Plaintiffs have uniquely suffered.
At Count III, the Plaintiffs allege that Chambers negligently
allowed conditions to exist which caused noxious odors to
physically invade the Plaintiffs' properties.
Chambers filed a motion to dismiss and supporting brief arguing
that the Plaintiffs' complaint must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In the alternative,
Chambers moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for punitive
damages and strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations.
Chambers argues that the Plaintiffs' private nuisance claim (Count
I) fails because the Plaintiffs failed to plead that:
(1) Chambers' invasion caused significant harm,
(2) Chambers' actions were either intentional and unreasonable
or negligent and reckless as required, and
(3) their property interests were encroached upon against their
will.
The Plaintiffs counter by arguing that:
(1) whether they suffered significant harm is a question for the
jury -- not the Court,
(2) they plausibly plead that Chambers acted with the requisite
state of mind, and
(3) they adequately alleged encroachment of Plaintiffs' property
interests.
Chambers responds that the Plaintiffs improperly relied on outdated
case law to support their contention that significant interference
is a question for the jury, and the Plaintiffs did not plead
significant harm or tangible damage to their properties. The Court
holds that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged the elements of a
private nuisance claim under Pennsylvania law.
The Court also holds that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged physical
injury sufficient for their negligence and private nuisance claims
to survive Chambers' motion to dismiss.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that
Chambers was aware of the Landfill's impact on the community and
acted in conscious disregard of those impacts. If the Plaintiffs'
allegations are proven, punitive damages may be appropriate.
Class Allegations
Chambers argues that the Court should strike the Plaintiffs' class
allegations because the complaint demonstrates that individual
issues will predominate, rendering class treatment inappropriate.
The Plaintiffs counter that:
(1) motions to strike class allegations at the motion to dismiss
stage are "disfavored" and granted in rare cases;
(2) striking class allegations based on predominance is
"suspect"; and
(3) Plaintiffs can prove that common issues predominate.
Chambers responds that striking class allegations at the motion to
dismiss stage is rare but appropriate in the instant case where
"the factfinder would have to go property-by-property throughout
the entire class to make these individualized causation
determinations." At this stage of the proceedings, the Court will
deny Chambers' motion because this is not the "rare case" where
striking class allegations is appropriate.
Chambers argues that the Plaintiffs' class allegations should be
struck under Rules 12(f) and 23(b)(3) because the complaint does
not demonstrate that individual issues will predominate. The
Plaintiffs counter that numerous common issues will predominate
including:
(1) whether and how Chambers emitted off-site nuisance odors;
(2) the geographic extent to which those odors invaded the
surrounding residential community;
(3) whether Chambers acted negligently or unreasonably in
emitting off-site odors; and
(4) the degree of harm suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class
Members.
The Court finds at this early stage, the Plaintiffs have met their
burden of advancing a prima facie showing of predominance. Reading
the complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the
allegations adequately plead that the Plaintiffs' claims are
sufficiently cohesive so as to warrant adjudication by
representation. The parties may revisit this issue at the class
certification stage.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fYtD8I from PacerMonitor.com.
CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Suit Transferred to Calif. District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida granted the Plaintiffs and
Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene and to Transfer the case
captioned as DAVID M. MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHARLES SCHWAB
CORPORATION and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendants, CASE NO:
2:24-cv-985-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla.) to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs and Proposed Intervenors Mary
Loughran, Rosemary Orlando, Donald Saunders, Michael Davis, and
Terrance "TJ" McDonald's (collectively, "Proposed Intervenors")
Motion to Intervene and to Transfer This Action to the Central
District of California and Plaintiff David M. Morris's,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
response. Defendants The Charles Schwab Corporation and Charles
Schwab & Co., Inc. did not file a response.
Morris alleges that Defendants breached their contractual and
fiduciary duties to their customers by sweeping uninvested cash in
their customers' brokerage accounts to deposit accounts held at
affiliated banks that paid unreasonably low, below-market rates of
interest. Proposed Intervenors are plaintiffs represented by
Interim Class Counsel in In re Charles Schwab Cash Sweep
Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-07344-MRA-E (C.D. Cal.), a consolidated
proposed class action pending against Defendants in the Central
District of California since August 2024. Like Morris's lawsuit,
their case concerns the underpayment of interest to customers who
were enrolled in the cash sweep programs. However, Morris is
narrower because the proposed class is limited to Schwab clients
with retirement accounts.
According to the Court, Proposed Intervenors are entitled to
intervention as of right. First, their motion is timely. It was
filed within weeks of the commencement of this action; the pretrial
conference has not occurred; Defendants have not filed an answer;
and no discovery has been conducted.
Next, the Proposed Intervenors have a "significantly protectable"
interest that may be impaired by the disposition of this case, the
Court finds. The Schwab Litigation class encompasses the proposed
class here, and Proposed Intervenors are prosecuting substantially
overlapping claims.
Finally, Proposed Intervenors' interests are not adequately
represented in this case, according to the Court. The Schwab
Litigation is the first-filed case, and the judge there
consolidated the related actions and appointed Interim Class
Counsel to ensure that the claims are properly managed prior to
class certification.
Next, the Court considers whether transfer is appropriate. Having
considered the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that
transfer to the Central District of California under Sec. 1404 is
the best course.
Judge Chappell concludes that this case could have been brought in
the Central District of California. Numerous related class actions
were filed there, as Defendants are subject to that court's
jurisdiction. The Charles Schwab Corporation has substantial
business operations there, and California is Charles Schwab & Co.
Inc.'s state of incorporation.
Moreover, transfer is in the interests of convenience and justice.
The Schwab Litigation already represents the consolidation of
several related cases, combined to promote judicial economy and
conserve both the court's and the parties' resources. If the Court
did not transfer this case, it could result in conflicting rulings
on critical issues. And Proposed Intervenors emphasize that
allowing this case to proceed parallel to the Schwab Litigation
'would undermine the leadership appointment' in that case.
This case is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California for consolidation with In re
Charles Schwab Cash Sweep Litigation, No. 2:24-cv-07344-MRA-E (C.D.
Cal).
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WtqWxi
CHARLES W. SCHWAB: Court Refers Traudt Claims to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Christina Reiss of the United States District Court for
the District of Vermont granted Charles W. Schwab and Co. Inc. and
Schwab Holdings, Inc.'s motion to stay the action captioned as
SCOTT TRAUDT, Plaintiff, v. ARI RUBENSTEIN, GTS SECURITIES LLC, GTS
EQUITY PARTNERS LLC, GTS EXECUTION SERVICES LLC, CHARLES W. SCHWAB
AND CO. INC., SCHWAB HOLDINGS, INC., FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-782 (D. Vt.), and referred
the matter to arbitration with regard to the claims against
Schwab..
Charles Schwab is a federally registered broker-dealer based in
Westlake, Texas, and CSH is its parent. TD Ameritrade was a
federally registered broker-dealer based in Omaha, Nebraska, that
was acquired by Schwab. On June 26, 2020, the Plaintiff applied to
open a TD Ameritrade account. On
Sept. 14, 2023, TD Ameritrade notified the Plaintiff by email that
his brokerage account would be automatically converted into a
Schwab brokerage account on Nov. 6, 2023, unless he opted out. The
Plaintiff did not opt out, and his TD Ameritrade account was
converted into a Schwab brokerage account.
The Plaintiff's claims against Schwab are related to his purchase
305 shares of Non-Voting Series A Preferred Shares of Meta
Materials ("MMTLP") at $9.62 a share on Nov. 30, 2022 from TD
Ameritrade for a total of $2,934.95. On Dec. 9, 2022, the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority halted trading of MMTLP due to an
extraordinary event, which Plaintiff claims proximately caused him
more than $1 million in damages.
The Plaintiff alleges Schwab violated the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Vermont Uniform Securities
Act by, among other things, (1) "misusing" bluesheet data to
facilitate insider trading; (2) sending fraudulent statements to
investors; (3) selling him counterfeit shares; and ( 4) knowingly
allowing falsified securities certificates to be introduced into
his brokerage account. He claims Schwab has spoliated evidence and
failed to properly respond to third parties' Freedom of Information
Claims. He seeks compensatory, treble, and punitive damages as well
as injunctive relief and attorney's fees and costs.
Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Charles Schwab and
Co., Inc. and Schwab Holdings., Inc. to stay and compel
arbitration. Schwab argues the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.
Sec. 2, et seq., requires the Court to compel the Plaintiff to
present his claims for arbitration. Schwab contends that
Plaintiff's claims fall under the arbitration clause of the
agreements he signed with Schwab and Schwab's predecessor, TD
Ameritrade.
The Plaintiff counters that the arbitration agreements are
unenforceable and unconscionable, violate the federal antitrust
laws, and that arbitration was not reasonably foreseeable when he
signed the agreements.
The Court finds because the Plaintiff's claims fall squarely within
the broad scope of the arbitration clauses in the Client and Schwab
Account agreements, because Congress has not deemed any of his
federal statutory claims nonarbitrable, and because the Plaintiff
has not established the unconscionability of the arbitration
agreements, the FAA mandates arbitration.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tlfu1t from PacerMonitor.com.
CHC VI: Auto-Owners Insurance Entitled to Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:23-cv-1803-KKM-NHA CHC VI, LTD. and STEVEN FOSTER, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Defendants, (M.D.
Fla.), Judge Kathyrn Kimball Mizelle of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Auto-Owners
Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment against CHC VI on
its declaratory judgment action.
Auto-Owners insured CHC VI under a Commercial General Liability
policy. CHC VI owns Angler's Green community located in Polk
County, Florida. Steven Foster, a resident of Angler's Green, filed
a separate class action suit in Florida state court against CHC VI.
Foster alleges that the residents of Angler's Green have been
"exposed to hazardous substances, including, but not limited to,
gamma radiation" because of the phosphate strip mining that
previously occurred there. The "polluting of and waste disposal on
the mined lands" was "incomplete[ly] remediat[ed]," as the land was
not returned "to its original condition prior to mining."
CHC VI allegedly "knew, or should have known," about the hazardous
substances from the previous mining activities. But CHC VI "failed
to properly remediate [it]" or warn Foster or the other class
members "of the significantly elevated cancer risks posed by the
presence of gamma radiation and other contaminants." Foster
therefore seeks damages from CHC VI "for leasing defective lots" to
the residents of Angler's Green. Foster alleges that the Angler's
Green properties have been damaged due to the presence of the
hazardous conditions "on, in and around their properties." The
residents have suffered personal injury "in the form of the
increased risk of latent disease.
Auto-Owners seeks a declaratory judgment that there is no coverage
for CHC VI under the policy for the Underlying Action.
The Underlying Complaint alleges "contamination" of property owned
by CHC VI via the "discharge" of hazardous chemicals, including
"waste." Based on the "plain language of the policy" in conjunction
with the allegations, these allegations fall squarely within the
pollution exclusion in the policy.
Without citing caselaw, CHC VI argues that the pollution exception
does not apply in this situation because the pollution is alleged
to have come from the "surrounding environment" and not "from" CHC
VI's property.
CHI VI also argues the pollution exclusion does not apply because
the damages sought by the Underlying Complaint did not arise out of
the release of pollutants only, but "rather the concealment,
mining, and ineffective remediation."
Because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
Auto-Owners is entitled to summary judgment, the Court finds.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k59DEy
CIRCLE K STORES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Callier Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON CALLIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CIRCLE K STORES INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:24-cv-00401-LS (W.D. Tex., Oct. 29, 2024) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Circle K Stores Inc. owns and operates convenience stores. The
Company offers coffee, fountain drinks, beer, snacks, candy, gift
cards, and general merchandise.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar F. Darwich, Esq.
THE DARWICH LAW FIRM, LLC
10921 Pellicano Dr, #100
El Paso, TX 79935
Telephone: (915) 671-2221
Email: omar@darwichlegal.com
COLBY BRAUN: Bid to Certify Class Denied w/o Prejudice in Glaum
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Joseph E. Glaum, v. Colby
Braun, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00146-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge
Clare Hochhalter entered an order denying the motion without
prejudice as to the requests to certify a class action and appoint
class counsel.
The Court deems those requests as potentially moot or premature
because the Court has yet to conduct a section 1915A review of the
amended complaint to determine whether Glaum has stated any
plausible claims.
The Plaintiff Glaum, an inmate proceeding without counsel, filed a
complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. At his
request, Glaum was granted an extension to October 21, 2024, to
submit an amended complaint.
On Oct. 10, 2024, Glaum requested a second extension to submit an
amended complaint and further requested the Court certify a class
action and appoint qualified counsel to represent the class.
Shortly thereafter, on Oct. 22, 2024, Glaum requested a stay while
he considered whether to proceed with this action.
The Court granted the request and stayed this matter until Friday,
December 6, 2024. On December 11, 2024, Glaum submitted an
incomplete prisoner litigation packet, which was returned to him.
On Dec. 26, 2024, Glaum filed an amended complaint, which has not
yet been screened as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
It appears Glaum intends to proceed upon the amended complaint
filed on Dec. 26, 2024. Accordingly, the previously imposed stay is
VACATED. Glaum's motion filed on Oct. 10, 2024, requested several
forms of relief. To the extent Glaum requested additional time to
amend the complaint, that motion is now MOOT. As to Glaum's request
to certify a class and appoint class counsel, such requests were
made before Glaum filed the amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F7slKy at no extra
charge.[CC]
CONNEXION POINT: Cruz Sues Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------
Maryann Cruz, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. CONNEXION POINT, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company,
and INTEGRITY, LLC., f/k/a INTEGRITY MARKETING GROUP a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00966-DBP (D. Utah, Dec. 30, 2024),
is brought arising from Defendants' willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and for common law claims of breach
of contract or (in the alternative) quantum meruit as a result of
the unpaid wages.
To support the services that Defendants offer, Defendants jointly
employ remote hourly employees who provide over-the-phone customer
service to the customers of their clients. These hourly employees
hold a variety of internal job titles, but are generally referred
to herein as Inbound Customer Care Representatives (or "CCRs"). For
example, Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a remote "Licensed
Healthcare Agent" that was responsible for fielding inbound calls
and "assisting Medicare beneficiaries with inquiries about plans in
their area."
The Defendants require their CCRs to work a full-time schedule,
plus overtime, however, Defendants do not compensate CCRs for all
work performed. The Defendants require their CCRs to perform
compensable work tasks off-the-clock before and after their
scheduled shifts and during their unpaid meal periods. This policy
results in CCRs not being paid for all time worked, including
overtime.
The Defendants knew or should have known how long it takes CCRs to
complete their off-the-clock work, and Defendants could have
properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Collective and
Class for this work, but did not. The Defendants knew or should
have known that CCRs, including Plaintiff, worked overtime hours
for which they were not compensated.
The Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action all current and
former remote CCRs who are similarly situated to each other in
terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure and Defendants'
violations of federal and state law, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a remote CCR in Texas.
CXP is an Integrity company, "builds technology-enabled solutions
for the healthcare industry."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
402 W. Liberty St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48178
Phone: (734) 234-5583
Email: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
HOOPER HATHAWAY, P.C.
126 S. Main St
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1903
Phone: (734) 662-4426
Email: orod@hooperhathaway.com
- and -
Randall K. Edwards, Esq.
RANDALL K. EDWARDS, PLLC
70 N. Main Street, Suite 105
Bountiful, UT 84010
Phone: (801) 328-0300
Email: randall@randallkedwards.com
CRIMSON WINE: Hacking Incident Targets Consumers' Info, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerana Todorov, writing for Wine Business, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Crimson Wine Group over
a hacking incident that targeted consumers' information, according
to the complaint.
Joanne Kaplan, an Illinois resident and a Crimson Wine customer,
alleged the Napa-based wine company was negligent in its handling
of the data, according to the lawsuit for more than $5 million.
The company reported on Dec. 13 to the Texas and Vermont attorney
generals that its systems were hacked between June 26 and June 30,
2024. It did so after detecting "unusual" activity on June 30.
The company sent letters to customers "whose information was
compromised as a result of the hacking incident" on Dec. 13. Kaplan
was among those notified, according to the federal lawsuit filed
Dec. 23 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
A representative for Crimson Wine declined to comment on the
lawsuit. "As a matter of policy, Crimson doesn't comment on open
legal matters," according to the written statement.
The information compromised in the data breach included social
security numbers as well as driver's license numbers, date of
birth, financial and medical data of at least 26,000 individuals,
according to the lawsuit.
Because of the "delayed response" those affected had "no idea" for
nearly 6 months that their private information had been
compromised, according to the complaint. In addition, they "were,
and continue to be, at significant risk or identity theft and
various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The
risk will remain for their respective lifetimes," according to the
lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges the company should have known the risk of a
cyber attack as companies that collect personal information are
particularly susceptible to hacking, according to the complaint.
Crimson Wine, a "national provider in possession of millions of
customers' "failed to take appropriate steps" to protect the
information, the lawsuit alleged.
"As a national service provider in possession of millions of
customers' (private information, Crimson Wine) failed to take
appropriate steps" to protect the information, according to the
lawsuit.
Kaplan said she made "reasonable efforts to mitigate" any impacts
of the data breach, including researching the incident, reviewing
her financial accounts for any fraud or attempted identity theft
and researching credit monitoring offered by Crimson Wine,
according to the lawsuit. Kaplan reported spending "several hours"
on the matter, "valuable time she otherwise would have sent on
other activities," according to the complaint.
The notice Kaplan received on Dec. 13 only included one year of
credit monitoring, according to the document.
Kaplan and other customers may also have to pay for credit
monitoring fees, credit reports, credit freeze and other expenses,
according to the complaint. They may have to cancel credit and
debit cards, waiting in line at banks to retrieve money, spend time
on the phone, paying late fees due to failed automated payments
tied to compromised cancelled cards, according to the complaint.
Kaplan said she suffered "anxiety" as a result of her information
released to cybercriminals, according to the complaint. "These
feelings include anxiety about unauthorized parties viewing,
selling, and/or using her (information) for purposes of committing
cyber and other crimes against her," according to the lawsuit.
Kaplan is "very concerned about this increased, substantial, and
continuing risk, as well as the consequences that identity theft
and fraud resulting from the (data breach) will have on her life,"
according to the court filing.
The lawsuit also alleged invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment and
fraud and deceptive business practices other allegations, according
to the complaint.
Crimson Wine operates wineries in the Napa Valley, Sonoma County,
Willamette Valley and Walla Walla Valley. Its portfolio includes
Pine Ridge Vineyards, Seghesio Family Vineyards, Archery Summit,
and Seven Hills Winery. [GN]
CSL PLASMA: Court Dismisses Jacob Vacation Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California granted CSL Plasma Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the case captioned as ARTURO JACOB, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff, v. CSL
PLASMA INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No.: 24-cv-01807-H-DEB (S.D. Calif.).
The Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice and without
leave to amend.
On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff Arturo Jacob filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego
against Defendant CSL Plasma Inc. On October 15, 2024, Defendant
filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to
state a claim. On December 9, 2024, the Court took the matter under
submission.
Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located in Florida. Defendant collects human plasma and
operates collection centers throughout the United States, including
in California. Plaintiff is a resident of California and a
non-exempt employee of Defendant.
Defendant has uniformly implemented vacation, paid time off, and
paid sick leave policies applicable to its employees, including
Plaintiff. Defendant's policies cause Defendant to deduct from its
employees' vacation time when they call out of work sick, instead
of deducting from its employees' paid sick leave. As a result,
Plaintiff alleges, Defendant has improperly deducted vested
vacation wages and has issued inaccurate pay statements.
On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego against
Defendant, alleging causes of action for:
(1) withholding wages in violation of California Labor Code
Secs. 221–224;
(2) withholding vested vacation wages in violation of California
Labor Code Sec. 227.3;
(3) failure to timely pay wages in violation of California Labor
Code Secs. 201–203;
(4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements in
violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226;
(5) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Businesses and
Professions Code Secs. 17200, et seq.; and
(6) violations of California's Private Attorneys General Act,
California Labor Code Sec. 2699.
Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to dismiss the action in its entirety for failure to state
a claim.
Defendant argues that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed
because, under California law, employers are permitted to deduct
from an employee's vacation time when employees are absent due to
illness. Defendant is correct, the Court finds.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has violated California Labor Code
Sec. 227.3 by deducting from his vested vacation benefits to cover
days he has been absent due to illness pursuant to its PTO
policies. He asserts that Defendant's PTO policies result in an
impermissible forfeiture of vested vacation benefits because he is
entitled to statutory paid sick days under California Labor Code
Sec. 246 in addition to the vacation benefits that Defendant
affords under its PTO policies.
According to the Court, Plaintiff's legal theory is not cognizable
under California law because employers have the right "to control
the terms under which vacation time may be exercised by employees."
And, contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, the California Labor Code
expressly states that additional paid sick days need not be
provided if the employer has an existing PTO policy that satisfies
certain conditions in the statute, the Court adds.
In other words, taking all facts as pled in Plaintiff's complaint
as true, Defendant acted permissibly when it promulgated PTO
policies requiring that vacation days be used to cover absences due
to sickness. Finally, because all of Plaintiff's remaining claims
are predicated on his section 227.3 claim or the theory underlying
it, the Court dismisses all of Plaintiff's claims. Because the
Court dismisses the entirety of Plaintiff's complaint for lack of a
cognizable legal theory, the Court will not reach the merits of
other arguments raised in the parties' briefing.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XGlPdo
DAVID ALLEN: Counsel Ordered to File Appearance by January 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as TERRY FABRICANT, Plaintiff, v.
DAVID ALLEN CAPITAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-11111 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ordered David Allen
Capital, Inc. to secure counsel and have counsel file an appearance
on its behalf by Jan. 15, 2025.
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Terry Fabricant alleges
that Defendant David Allen Capital, Inc. violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act when DAC made pre-recorded telephone calls
to Fabricant and others.
On Dec. 13, 2024, DAC's apparent owner, David Rutz, submitted a
letter to the Court in which he says that while DAC has retained
counsel that is willing to appear on its behalf in this case, that
counsel had encountered unexpected administrative issues with the
Court's electronic filing system that prevented him from formally
entering his appearance on DAC's behalf.
Once counsel files his appearance, the Court will schedule a status
conference with counsel for both parties to discuss next steps in
this action.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qf7tT9 from PacerMonitor.com.
DELOITTE CONSULTING: Marchand Sues Over Massive Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lori Marchand and Monica Depina, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Case No.
1:24-cv-00554-JJM-LDA (D.R.I., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought arises
from the massive data breach of the RI Bridges computer software
system ("RI Bridges"), used for providing the state's government
assistance to Rhode Island residents, such those enrolled in SNAP,
Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and healthcare
purchased through the state's HealthSource RI.
The breach occurred in early December, when an international ring
of hackers gained access to the state's online portal for obtaining
social services, providing hackers access confidential data kept in
the RI Bridges software system, including the private information
("Private Information") of anyone who may have received state
assistance since 2016 ("Data Breach"). Information that is subject
to the hack includes among other things, Class Members names,
addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers and certain
banking information.
As a consequence of the Data Breach and ransomware attack over
650,000 Rhode Islanders are at risk of having their identities
stolen, or their personally identifiable information ("PII") and
protected health information ("PHI"). The Data Breach has not only
exposed the PHI and PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members to a third
party which can now sell or exploit that information, but also
disabled some Class Members from timely receiving their government
assistance.
According to an announcement by the Rhode Island government,
Deloitte launched an investigation into the Data Breach and
confirmed that an unauthorized actor accessed the system on
December 5, 2024, and that the hacker may have copied and
exfiltrated certain files containing Plaintiffs' and Class members'
PII and/or PHI. In response, Deloitte immediately implemented
additional security measures--measures which likely should have
already been in place.
Despite learning of the Data Breach on about December 5, 2024, and
determining that PHI and PII was involved, Class Members only
recently received notice in the form of texts of the data breach
and from the RI Bridges system and the State of Rhode Island--not
Defendant. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiffs' and Class
Members' Private Information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs and submitted their PII and PHI to the Defendant.
Deloitte Consulting LLP is a Delaware limited liability company
organized and headquartered in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
1307 Chalkstone Avenue
Providence, RI 02908
Phone: (401) 831-7730
Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
Email: pnwlaw@aol.com
- and -
Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
THEGRANTLAWFIRM, PLLC
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: 212-292-4441
Facsimile: 212-292-4442
Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
Montvale, NJ 07645
Phone: 201-391-7000
Facsimile: 201-307-1086
Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
memert@kgglaw.com
DEXCOM INC: Court Consolidates Two Shareholder Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert S. Huie of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied
in part the joint motion to consolidate, appoint lead co-counsel,
and stay proceedings filed by the parties in Silva v. Sayer et al.,
Case No. 24-cv-1645-RSH-VET and Malone v. Sayer et al., Case No.
24-cv-1799-RSH-VET.
The instant cases are shareholder derivative actions brought on
behalf of nominal defendant Dexcom, Inc. against current and former
Dexcom board members and executive officers.
Dexcom is a "biotechnology company based in San Diego, California
that manufactures and distributes continuous glucose monitoring”
systems. Plaintiffs are Dexcom shareholders. Plaintiffs allege that
between Jan. 8, 2024 and July 25, 2024, the Individual Defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements regarding,
among other things, the sustainability of Dexcom's growth, ability
to acquire new customers, and sales constraints. According to
Plaintiffs, the truth was later revealed through a press release
announcing disappointing financial results for the second quarter
of fiscal year 2024. After the press release, the price of Dexcom's
stock declined 40.66% in a single day.
The Silva action was filed on Sept. 13, 2024 and the Malone action
was filed shortly thereafter on Oct. 7, 2024. The Court
subsequently filed a Notice of Related cases and the two cases were
reassigned to Judge Huie. On Oct. 16, 2024, the Parties filed the
instant joint motion to consolidate, appoint lead co-counsel for
Plaintiffs, and stay proceedings.
Consolidation
The Court notes that the Related Actions are brought against the
same defendants, allege the same or substantially identical
violations of law, and involve the same predicate facts. Both
actions are shareholder derivative suits asserted on behalf of
nominal defendant Dexcom against Dexcom's current and former board
members and executive officers. They allege the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements between Jan. 8,
2024 and July 25, 2024 regarding the sustainability of Dexcom's
growth. They also assert violations of various provisions of
federal securities law and related claims, including breach of
fiduciary duty. All Parties to the Related Actions have agreed to
consolidation. Consolidation is appropriate under these
circumstances, the Court finds.
Appointment of Lead Counsel
Considering Rigrodsky Law's lengthy and substantial experience
handling complex shareholder derivative litigations, and the lack
of any opposition, the Court approves Plaintiffs' request to
appoint Rigrodsky Law as lead counsel.
Stay of Proceeding
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Parties' request to
stay.
The Court concludes a limited stay is appropriate in this case. It
will stay the consolidated derivative actions until the Court's
complete resolution of any motions to dismiss in the Federal
Securities Class Actions. It does not, however, extend this stay at
this time to any appeals of any motions to dismiss. Instead, the
Parties may file appropriate motions to renew this stay, in the
event of an appeal, if necessary.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1JT2QJ from PacerMonitor.com.
DIRECTTOU LLC: Hoang To's Bid for Class Settlement Approval Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as JONATHAN HOANG TO, Plaintiff, v.
DIRECTTOU, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-06447-WHO (N.D. Calif.),
Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the following motions:
(1) proposed intervenors' (Douglas Feller, Jeffrey Heise, and
Joseph Mull, collectively "Feller") motion to intervene and to
dismiss or alternatively to transfer or stay this case pursuant to
the first-to-file rule; and
(2) plaintiff Hoang To's motion to preliminarily approve a class
action settlement of this case.
Feller seeks to intervene to protect the interests of the class in
the case he filed on Aug. 8, 2024, in the Southern District of
Florida. Feller argues that the case filed by Hoang To is a copycat
case and the result of a reverse auction by defense counsel. Feller
seeks intervention as of right or permissively under Rule 24(a) or
(b) because the Hoang To settlement would extinguish his claims
with an unfair and inadequate settlement.
In support, Feller alleges the following:
1. Hoang To conducted no, or had inadequate, discovery to settle
this case;
2. Hoang To settled this case remarkably quickly, without the
assistance of a mediator, just days after Feller's counsel and
defendant attended a formal mediation with a retired judge and who
believed, like Feller, that settlement negotiations were ongoing
while defense counsel were instead negotiating with Hoang To;
3. Defendant "obstructed" Feller's attempt in the Southern
District of Florida to be appointed interim counsel, obstructed his
efforts to intervene in this case and to have the Hoang To case
dismissed under the first-to-file rule, and obstructed discovery in
the Florida case;
4. Hoang To settled this case based on a last-minute stipulated
expansion of the claims in this case to encompass those in Feller
without a commensurate expansion in the recovery for the class.
That stipulated amendment extended the Hoang To action beyond the
Video Privacy Protection Act violations based on defendant's use of
the Meta pixel (the only claims alleged in Hoang To's original and
First Amended Complaint) to encompass the allegations at the heart
of the Feller action -- that defendant was also liable under the
VPPA, because defendant sold or rented consumer data to
third-party data brokers other than Meta.
Feller's motion to intervene is denied because their interests can
be protected through objections to the approval of the settlement.
And because the Feller case and this case were filed at essentially
the same time, the Feller case is stayed, and this case has moved
further along, the motion to dismiss or transfer under the
first-to-file rule is denied.
Hoang To's motion for preliminary approval is denied without
prejudice. For the settlement to be approved as fair, reasonable
and adequate, counsel need to address the significant concerns
raised by Feller regarding the valuation of the claims based not on
defendant's use of the Meta pixel tool, but on defendant's sale or
rent of consumer data to data brokers and other non-Meta third
parties. Counsel must also address issues with respect to the scope
of the release and proposed notice.
Judge Orrick says serious concerns regarding the valuation of the
data broker-related claims under the VPPA and Sec. 1799.3 lead to
denial of preliminary approval. Other noted deficiencies should be
corrected before a motion for preliminary approval is resubmitted.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wgz4ZG from PacerMonitor.com.
DOCTORS HOSPITAL: Carter Files Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Doctors Hospital of
Manteca, Inc. The case is captioned as LORRAINE C. CARTER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF MANTECA, INC., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0014757
(Cal. Super., San Joaquin Cty., October 30, 2024).
A case management conference is set for April 28, 2025, before
Judge Esmeralda Zendejas.
Doctors Hospital of Manteca, Inc. is a healthcare provider in
Manteca, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Corbett H. Williams, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF CORBETT H. WILLIAMS
24422 Avenida de la Carlota, Suite 370
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
Telephone: (949) 649-4723
DRAPER AND KRAMER: Seeks to Decertify Vasquez Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE VASQUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. DRAPER AND KRAMER
MORTGAGE CORP., Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Defendant will move the Court on Feb. 6, 2025, for an order
granting DKMC's motion for decertification.
This motion is made on the grounds that:
(1) the Court must deny certification of Plaintiff Jose
Vasquez's
class claims because the variance in testimony across the
Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective shows that not all of
them are similarly situated for resolving whether the
FLSA's
outside salesperson exemption apply to all of the
Plaintiffs
in this Action; and
(2) the Court must deny certification of Vasquez's class claims
because several mini-trials are necessary for not only
resolving the application of the FLSA’s outside
salesperson
exemption but also resolving how many hours each of the
Plaintiffs worked.
Draper is a property and financial services company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fjmDMC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher A. Braham, Esq.
Brian Casillas, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Telephone: (310) 277 4110
Facsimile: (310) 277 4730
E-mail: cbraham@mwe.com
bcasillas@mwe.com
ELLIS COUNTY: Court Dismisses Manning Lawsuit with Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas accepted the Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") in
the case captioned as KEVIN JAMES MANNING, Plaintiff, v. ELLIS
COUNTY JAIL STAFF, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-2668-L-BW
(N.D. Tex.).
On November 7, 2024, the Report was entered, recommending that the
court, pursuant to the "three-strikes" rule of 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1915(g), summarily dismiss this action by the pro se plaintiff.
On October 22, 2024, Mr. Manning filed a handwritten
correspondence, which the court construes as a civil complaint,
which raises claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. In his
Complaint, he contends that unnamed employees of the Wayne McCollum
Detention Center "are threatening to kill the kitchen workers."
Mr. Manning "seeks to open a class action, to investigate, and to
have the Secret Service report on the jail captain 'raping women
living inside Manning.
Because this action was filed without the filing fee, it is subject
to review under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Report
further determined that Mr. Manning has filed at least three
prisoner civil actions that have been dismissed as frivolous,
malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Moreover, Mr. Manning
does not show that he was in "imminent danger of serious physical
injury" at the time he filed this suit as required by the Fifth
Circuit; thus, he is barred from proceeding with this action.
Further, the magistrate judge determined that Mr. Manning had been
issued a sanction warning previously, in which the court warned him
that he could be barred from bringing future lawsuits without
obtaining leave and that monetary sanctions could be imposed. Since
this warning, he has filed eight civil actions in this court, all
of which are "either incoherent or raise fantastic and delusional
allegations." As a result, the magistrate judge recommended that
Mr. Manning should be barred from filing future actions in this or
any federal court without first obtaining leave of court.
Having considered Plaintiff's pleadings, the file, record in this
case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and
conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct and accepts them as
those of the court. As Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee as of
Dec. 16 as recommended by the magistrate judge, the court dismisses
with prejudice this action. Further, the court directs the clerk of
the court not to accept any future actions from this Plaintiff
unless he first obtains leave from a district or magistrate judge.
The court also prospectively certifies that any appeal of this
action would not be taken in good faith. In support of this
certification, it accepts and incorporates by reference the Report.
Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action
would present no legal point of arguable merit and would,
therefore, be frivolous. In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may
challenge this certification by filing a separate motion to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sCt4hC
ELON MUSK: Faces Alvarez Fraud Class Suit in W.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Elon Musk. The case
is captioned as Robert Anthony Alvarez and Steven John Robbins, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Musk, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01174-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich., Nov. 5, 2024).
The suit alleges violation of fraud related laws.
The case is Assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert J. Jonker.
The Defendant includes America PAC, a political action committee,
Chris Gober, and Chris Young.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC (SOUTHFIELD)
One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
- and -
Victor Manuel Jimenez, Jr. Esq.
Robert Anthony Alvarez , Sr. Esq.
AVANTI LAW GROUP, PLLC (MI)
600 28th St., SW
Wyoming, MI 49509
Telephone: (616) 328-2777
E-mail: vjimenez@avantilaw.com
ralvarez@avantilaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles R. Spies, Esq.
Dickinson Wright PLLC (DC)
1825 Eye St., NW, Ste. 900
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 466-5964
E-mail: cspies@dickinsonwright.com
- and -
Daniel Coley Ziegler, Esq.
Robert L. Avers, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC (ANN ARBOR)
350 S Main St., Ste. 300
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Telephone: (734) 436-7363
E-mail: dziegler@dickinsonwright.com
ravers@dickinsonwright.com
EVERYDAY DOSE: McGonigle Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew James McGonigle, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. EVERYDAY DOSE LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-25115-KMW (S.D.
Fla., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought against the Defendant under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of the
Defendant's unsolicited text messages,
The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by delivering, or causing
to be delivered, more than one advertisement or marketing text
message to residential or cellular telephone numbers registered
with the National Do-Not-Call Registry ("DNC Registry") without
prior express invitation or permission required by the TCPA, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person.
The Defendant is a corporation that resides in this District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
237 South Dixie Highway, 4th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
rachel@kaufmanpa.com
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Salaiz Suit Over Unwanted Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Salaiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. FIRST AMERICAN HOME WARRANTY CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, and LEADER CALLS GROUP, LLC, Case No.
3:24-cv-00410-DCG (W.D. Tex., Nov. 5, 2024) is a class action
complaint against the Defendants to stop their illegal practice of
placing, unsolicited telephone calls in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
Plaintiff Salaiz contends that his personal cell phone (XXX)
XXX-6688 has been registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
since March 7, 2024. He has never instructed the National
Do-Not-Call Registry administrator to remove him from the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. Mr. Salaiz has been on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry at all times relevant to this Complaint.
The Plaintiff is an individual residing in or near El Paso, County
Texas.
First American Home Warranty is an insurance, brokerage, and home
warranty company located in Santa Rosa, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Omar F. Darwich, Esq.
The Darwich Law Firm, LLC
10921 Pellicano Dr, No. 100
El Paso, TX 79935
Telephone: (915) 671-2221
E-mail: omar@darwichlegal.com
GARDAWORLD CASH: Bid to Dismiss Artis, et al. Suit Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Artis et al v. GardaWorld Cash Service Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00837, Magistrate Judge David C. Keesler of the United
States District Court for the Western District Court of North
Carolina denied GardaWorld Cash Service Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the original class action complaint filed by Blair Artis and
Jonathan Fisher as moot.
In response to the pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a
first amended class action complaint as a matter of course on
December 16, 2024, which supersedes the original complaint. As
such, Judge Keesler will direct that defendant's motion to dismiss
the original complaint be denied as moot.
It is well settled that a timely-filed amended pleading supersedes
the original pleading and that motions directed at superseded
pleadings may be denied as moot.
To the extent defendant contends the amended complaint is
deficient, the court's order is without prejudice to defendant
filing a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CIFWpS
GETTY IMAGES: Holland Sues Over Improper Business Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY HOLLAND; LILIANE HOLLAND; and DANIEL HOLLAND, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GETTY
IMAGES HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 655746/2024 (N.Y. Sup.,
New York Cty., Oct. 29, 2024) is an action seeking to remedy the
Defendant's refusal to honor the terms of a Warrant Agreement
associated with public warrants issued by the Defendant.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, after a precipitous
drop in the Defendant's stock price and its insiders' receipt of
the earn-out shares, on September 19, 2022, the Defendant notified
Warrant holders that it would exercise its right to redeem all
outstanding Warrants for $0.01 each. The Warrants ceased trading on
October 19, 2022, and were delisted on October 31, 2022.
The Plaintiffs seek damages for the lost profits they would have
obtained if the Defendant had permitted them to execute their
trading plan to exercise Warrants held on August 22, 2022 or at any
time prior to the effectiveness of the Getty S-1. Rather than
realize the value of their Warrant position, the Plaintiffs were
forced to suffer losses by (i) selling certain of their Warrants at
a loss and (ii) suffering losses on their remaining Warrants when
they were redeemed for $0.01 each.
Getty Images Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, supplies stock images, editorial
photography, video, and music for business and consumers worldwide.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Rakower, Esq.
Travis J. Mock, Esq.
Daniel F. Gilpin, Esq.
RAKOWER LAW PLLC
260 Madison Ave., 15th Fl.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 660-5550
Email: mrakower@rakowerlaw.com
tmock@rakowerlaw.com
dgilpin@rakowerlaw.com
- and -
Brian D. Hail, Esq.
ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE
MALLORY & NATISIS LLP
599 Lexington Ave., 38th Fl.
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 542-3400
Email: bhail@allenmatkins.com
GILMORE SERVICES: Halton Files Suit in California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gilmore Services,
LLC. The case is captioned as MICHAEL HALTON, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GILMORE
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 24CV022470 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty.,
November 4, 2024).
A case management conference is set for Jul 11, 2025, before Judge
Christopher E. Krueger.
Gilmore Services, LLC is a paper shredding service provider, doing
business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shani Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 255-9047
Facsimile: (858) 404-9203
GITHUB INC: Doe Appeals Partial Dismissal of Lawsuit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. DOE, 1, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled J. Doe, 1, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Github, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-06823, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiffs brought this complaint against the Defendants for
violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Lanham Act,
California's Unfair Competition law, California Consumer Privacy
Act, and for breach of contract regarding licenses, GitHub's
Privacy Statement, and GitHub's Terms of Service. The Plaintiffs
and the Class also bring this complaint against the Defendants for
their tortious interference in the Plaintiffs' contractual
relationships; for fraud; and for negligence regarding handling of
sensitive data.
On June 24, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss through an Order entered by Judge Jon
S. Tigar. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the Court's June
24 Order dismissing their Section 1202(b) claims.
On July 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
appeal.
On Sept. 27, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify order for interlocutory appeal and motion to stay pending
appeal. The Court ruled that it is appropriate to certify the order
for interlocutory appeal. Moreover, the Court believes that
judicial economy will be best served by staying this case as the
Ninth Circuit's decision is likely to provide substantial guidance
that may materially alter the Court's decisions in the instant
case.
The appellate case is captioned Doe, et al. v. Github, Inc., et
al., Case No. 24-7700, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order is due on January 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on February 10, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 10, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 10, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants J. DOE, 1, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Joseph R Saveri, Esq.
Margaux Poueymirou, Esq.
Evan Creutz, Esq.
Christopher K.L. Young, Esq.
William Waldir Castillo Guardado, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1505
San Francisco, CA 94108
- and -
Maxwell V. Pritt, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 41st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Jesse Panuccio, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER, LLP
1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
Defendant-Appellee GITHUB, INC. is represented by:
Aileen McGrath, Esq.
Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
Joseph Gratz, Esq.
Vera Ranieri, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
- and -
Christopher J. Cariello, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
51 W. 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
- and -
Alyssa M. Caridis, Esq.
William Wayne Oxley, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
- and -
Annette Louise Hurst, Esq.
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
405 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
- and -
John R. Lanham, Esq.
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92130
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Parties Seek More Time for Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeCostanzo v.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04869-NJC-AYS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending
the deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of Plaintiff's motion
for class certification and GSK's reply in support of its motion
for summary judgment to Jan. 27, 2025 in light of winter holidays
and the number of expert depositions to be completed.
On Oct. 17, 2024, Plaintiff served Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and three accompanying expert reports. Also on
October 17, 2024, GSK served its motion for summary judgment. The
parties completed depositions of Plaintiff's three proffered
experts by November 21, 2024.
On Dec. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff served an opposition to GSK’s
motion for summary judgment. Also on December 16, 2024, GSK served
an opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
four accompanying expert reports. The parties have scheduled the
depositions of GSK’s four proffered experts.
This is the first request for an extension specific to the deadline
for the parties’ replies. This is the third requested extension
that would affect the subject deadline.
On Feb. 2, 2024, Magistrate Judge Shields approved the parties’
joint request for a 75- day extension of the discovery schedule,
which necessitated extending the subject deadline from July 17,
2024, to October 15, 2024.
On May 22, 2024, in response to the Plaintiff's request for an
extension of the discovery schedule, the Court granted a
three-month extension of the discovery schedule, which necessitated
extending the subject deadline from Oct. 15, 2024, to Jan. 15,
2025.
GSK is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 24, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MHASHx at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Connett, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq.
Sonal Jain, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com
ebrehm@sirillp.com
sjain@sirillp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Grant R. MacQueen, Esq.
J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
Natalie M. Georges, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178
Telephone: (212) 309-6000
Facsimile: (212) 309.6001
E-mail: grant.macqueen@morganlewis.com
gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com
natalie.georges@morganlewis.com
GNC HOLDINGS: Wilkins Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANDREW WILKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
24-08306-TT, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on November 4, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-05909-GAM to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged civil rights
violations.
GNC Holdings, LLC is a retail company based in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Nicholas Karwacki, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
1650 Market St., Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-2768
Email: nkarwacki@cozen.com
GOODHOPE HEALTHCARE: Morales Sues Over Unpaid Earned Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Luisa Morales, on Behalf of Herself and a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons v. GOODHOPE HEALTHCARE AND HOME HEALTH SERVICES
INC. and CHIMATARA EBIRIM, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-13353
(N.D. Ill., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA") as a result
of Defendants' failure to pay all earned overtime and minimum wages
due to Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and the class have worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks but were not paid their overtime wages at the
rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA
and IMWL. Additionally, Plaintiff and the class worked hours for
which they were not paid in violation of the FLSA, IMWL, and the
IWPCA.
Throughout their employment, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
records of time worked by Plaintiff and the class. Defendants' time
records regularly under-recorded regular and overtime hours that
Plaintiff and the class worked because Defendants, specifically
Defendant Ebirim, altered time records to remove time that the
Plaintiff and the class worked and had logged into the Carewhen
app, without justification and to avoid paying proper wages and
overtime.
The Defendants were aware or should have been aware that Plaintiffs
and the class worked more hours than were recorded and that
altering time records to remove time actually worked is
impermissible and unlawful. In doing so, Defendants suffered,
permitted, and required Plaintiffs and the class to work additional
unpaid hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as caregivers.
Goodhope Healthcare and Home Health Services Inc. is a company that
offers a "broad range of home health services" including Caregiver
Services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
Patrick J. Cowlin, Esq.
HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
111 Wacker Drive - Suite 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 224-2423
Email: mnbolanos@hq-law.com
pcowlin@hq-law.com
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Walker Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CASEY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, a Maryland
corporation; GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa corporation
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV448351, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
November 4, 2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:24-cv-07657-NC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code.
Government Employees Insurance Company is an auto insurance company
based in Maryland.
GEICO Casualty Company is an insurance company based in Maryland.
GEICO General Insurance Company is an auto insurance company based
in Maryland. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kristin L. Walker-Probst, Esq.
Courtney C. Wenrick, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (714) 557-3800
Facsimile: (714) 557-3347
Email: Kristin.Walker-Probst@wbd-us.com
Courtney.Wenrick@wbd-us.com
HANCHETT PAPER: Chevry Files Labor Suit in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanchett Paper
Company, et al. The case is captioned as ANNA CHEVRY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HANCHETT PAPER
COMPANY, et al., Case No. CIVSB2432851 (Cal. Super., San Bernardino
Cty., October 30, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged employment
violations.
Hanchett Paper Company is a distributor of packaging products,
equipment and services, doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC
1460 Westwood Blvd., Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
HAPPY GROUP: Files 9th Cir. Appeal of Order Staying Rusoff Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE HAPPY GROUP, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Jonathan Rusoff, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Happy
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-08084-AMO, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Plaintiffs filed this class action complaint against the
Defendant for alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising,
labeling, and marketing of its eggs.
On August 8, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their operative fourth
amended complaint asserting claims for violations of (1) the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), (2) California's
False Advertising Law (FAL), (3) the California Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), (4) New York General Business Law (GBL), (5) New York
GBL Section 350, (6) breach of express warranty under California
Commercial Code Section 2313, (7) breach of express warranty under
New York U.C.C. Section 2-313, (8) breach of implied warranty under
California Commercial Code Section 2314, and (9) and intentional
misrepresentation.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on April
11, 2023. The Happy Group filed its opposition to the motion on
June 9, 2023, with a motion to strike the expert opinion of Craig
Morris. The Plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for
class certification and an opposition to the motion to strike on
July 21, 2023. The Happy Group filed its reply in support of the
motion to strike on August 11, 2023.
On Sept. 27, 2024, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin entered an Order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and granting the Defendant's motion to strike.
On Oct. 11, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration.
On Oct. 18, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to
stay proceedings pending reconsideration and Rule 23(f) petition,
which Judge Martinez-Olguin granted on Oct. 29, 2024. The case was
stayed pending resolution of the pending Rule 23(f) petition and
any related appeal. The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration was denied without prejudice to
re-filing after conclusion of those proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned Rusoff, et al. v. The Happy Group,
Inc., Case No. 24-7706, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on December 23, 2024. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees JONATHAN RUSOFF, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Aubry Wand, Esq.
WAND LAW FIRM, PC
100 Oceangate, Suite 1200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Defendant-Appellant THE HAPPY GROUP, INC. is represented by:
Amit Rana, Esq.
Antonia Isabella Stabile, Esq.
VENABLE LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3800
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Nicholas M. DePalma, Esq.
VENABLE, LLP
1850 Towers Crescent Plaza, Suite 400
Tysons, VA 22182
HERSHEY CO: Beekman Sues Over PFAS on Chocolate Wrappers
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions, reports that a New York woman
is suing The Hershey Co.
Why: The plaintiff claims the company has harmful chemicals in some
of its chocolate wrappers.
Where: The Hershey class action was filed in a Pennsylvania federal
court.
The Hershey Co. has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging
that the packaging for several of its popular chocolate products
contains harmful "forever chemicals," known as PFAS.
The lawsuit claims the iconic candy maker failed to disclose the
presence of these chemicals in its wrappers, despite marketing its
products as high-quality and safe.
Plaintiff Bernadette Beekman filed the class action complaint
against The Hershey Co. on Dec. 24 in a Pennsylvania federal court,
alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are synthetic
compounds resistant to decomposition and linked to serious health
risks, including cancer and hormone disruption, the lawsuit says.
Studies have shown that PFAS can transfer from food packaging to
the food itself, Beekman's lawsuit says.
Reese's Peanut Butter Cups could have contaminated packaging,
lawsuit claims
The Hershey PFAS lawsuit points out Hershey's own public
commitments to food safety, including claims that its products meet
"the highest quality, safety, and sustainability standards."
However, independent tests cited in the suit reportedly found "high
levels of banned PFAS" in Hershey's packaging, Beekman's lawsuit
says.
"Reasonable consumers do not expect that everyday food products
will be contaminated or carry a material risk of contamination from
PFAS," the complaint says, highlighting that several states have
banned PFAS in food packaging due to health concerns.
Products named in the Hershey PFAS lawsuit include Hershey's Milk
Chocolate Bars, Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, Hershey's Kisses, and
Kit Kat Bars, among others.
Beekman alleges she would not have purchased or paid premium prices
for these items had she known about the potential contamination.
"Hershey represents to consumers its dedication to transparency and
that it 'supports consumers' right to know what is in their food,'
yet it fails to disclose the risk of PFAS contamination in its
products," the lawsuit says.
As a result, Beekman is looking to represent anyone who purchased
one of the candies named in the lawsuit. She is suing for
violations of New York General Business laws and unjust enrichment,
and is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs and a jury trial.
In November, Hershey's was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging
its candy wrappers contain harmful "forever chemicals."
The plaintiff is represented by Patrick Howard of Saltz,
Mongeluzzi, & Bendesky P.C.; Catherine K. Smith and Shashi K. Gowda
of Gustafson Gluek PLLC; Janine L. Pollack, Lori G. Feldman,
Rebecca A. Peterson, David J. George and Brittany L. Sackrin of
George Feldman Mcdonald PLLC and Timothy J. Peter of Faruqi &
Faruqi LLP.
The Hershey class action is Bernadette Beekman v. The Hershey
Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-02234-CCC in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
HERSHEY CO: Court Issues Discovery Order in Loza, et al. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California issued a discovery
order in the case captioned as NICOLE LOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THE HERSHEY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-01455-MMC (TSH)
(N.D. Calif.).
The parties have four discovery disputes. The Court held a hearing
concerning those disputes on December 17, 2024.
Unpurchased Products
The Plaintiffs seek to take discovery concerning all 64 products
listed in Exhibit C to the Complaint. The products are all Lily
chocolate products that are labeled "Stevia Sweetened" (or in one
case "Made with Stevia"). The Complaint alleges that consumers
understand that representation to mean that the products are
entirely, or at least predominantly, sweetened with Stevia, which
is a natural plant-based sweetener with health benefits. Plaintiffs
allege that in reality, the products are primarily sweetened with
erythritol, a highly processed sugar alcohol, which is not a
natural sweetener and is linked to increased risk of heart attack
and stroke. The Complaint alleges that every single product listed
in Exhibit C contains this same representation that is false in
each case for the same reason.
The three named Plaintiffs do not allege that they personally
purchased all 64 of the products listed in Exhibit C. Rather, they
purchased Lily's Peppermint Flavor White Chocolate Style Baking
Chips, Lily's Creamy Milk Chocolate, Lily's Salted Caramel Milk
Chocolate, and Lily's Salted Caramel Milk Chocolate. The question
presented by this motion is whether Plaintiffs may take discovery
concerning the unpurchased products in Exhibit C.
According to the Court, the Plaintiffs' claims are uniform for all
64 products, alleging the same misrepresentation for each, and
there is no factual dispute that the products are all labeled
essentially the same way and that in every case the products are
primarily sweetened by erythritol. Whether the alleged
misrepresentation is material to all consumers or not is to be
litigated at the class certification stage. The limited issue
before the Court now is whether the Plaintiffs may take discovery
into all 64 products, as they try to build their case both on the
merits and with respect to class certification.
The Court does not believe the Plaintiffs must make a prima facie
case that the class action requirements under Rule 23 are likely to
be satisfied before they can get discovery into similar unpurchased
products. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to
compel as to the unpurchased products listed in Exhibit C.
Marketing Materials
The Plaintiffs move to compel concerning their requests for
production ("RFPs") 10-12 and 31, which concern marketing
materials. The primary dispute is whether marketing materials are
relevant to this case. Hershey says no, arguing that this case is
only about the front label of its products, which contain the
representation about Stevia.
A review of the Complaint demonstrates that this case is primarily
but not exclusively about labeling. It is also about product
marketing. Therefore, the Court concludes that marketing materials
are relevant to the needs of the case. Further, broad discovery
into the marketing for the products is relevant to show how
prominent the Stevia claims are in the overall marketing of the
product. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to compel as to RFPs
10-12 and 31 is granted.
Third Party Communications
The Plaintiffs move to compel on RFPs 29 and 30, concerning
communications from customers relating to the sweetening claims on
the product labels, and communications relating to inquiries
related to the sweetening claims on the products. Hershey objects
that communications with retailers are irrelevant, but the Court
disagrees. Communications with retailers about the sweetening
claims are likely to be relevant. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs'
motion to compel as to RFPs 29 and 30 is granted.
Plaintiffs' Depositions
The Plaintiffs do not want to be deposed until after Hershey
produces documents. The Court thinks that is an unreasonable
position. According to the Court, Hershey is entitled to depose
Plaintiffs now; it doesn't need to wait until Plaintiffs receive
documents they never saw and therefore couldn't possibly be part of
what caused their alleged injuries or lead to their decision to
become class representatives. Hershey's motion to compel is
granted.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7a17tk from PacerMonitor.com.
HIGHGATE HOTELS: Bugaeva Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elena Bugaeva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HIGHGATE HOTELS, L.P., Case No. 1:24-cv-10001
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' personally identifiable information ("PII") protected
health information ("PHI"), including names, Social Security
numbers, tax identification numbers, driver's license numbers, and/
or state identification card numbers, and including financial
account information, payment card information, passport numbers or
other government identification numbers, health information, and/or
health insurance information (collectively, "Private
Information").
Between March 25, 2024, and March 26, 2024, hackers targeted and
accessed Defendant's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and
Class Members' sensitive, confidential Private Information stored
therein, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members
(the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant's who, in order to obtain employment from Defendant, was
required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public
Private Information. The Defendant could not perform its operations
or provide its services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information and retains it for many years, at
least, even after the employee relationship has ended.
The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it
collected and maintained, including by failing to implement
industry standards for data security to protect against, detect,
and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to
access and steal employees' Private Information from Defendant.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted
Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent
and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
its employees' sensitive data, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and employees of
Defendant who worked for Defendant in or prior to March 2024.
The Defendant is a hospitality group that manages hotels across the
country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven P. Sukert, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 332-4200
Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
HOME COMFORT: Faces Daniels Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALBERT DANIELS and JACOB NAILS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HOME COMFORT USA HEATING,
COOLING, PLUMBING & ELECTRICAL, LLC, KEN STARR, INC., APEX
CALIFORNIA REGION HOLDCO, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 30-2024-01437782-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super.,
Orange Cty., November 4, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of California Labor Code and California
Business & Professions Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages,
final wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements,
unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as non-exempt employees.
Home Comfort USA Heating, Cooling, Plumbing & Electrical, LLC is a
provider of heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) repair,
maintenance, and installation services in California.
Ken Starr, Inc. is a building equipment contractor in California.
Apex California Region Holdco, LLC is a HVAC, plumbing and
electrical services provider in California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
Chris Petersen, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Telephone: (818) 230-7502
Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
Email: doug@justicelawcorp.com
statavos@justicelawcorp.com
cpetersen@justicelawcorp.com
HOME DEPOT: Court Tosses Carbajal TUCSRA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell of the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona granted Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the case captioned as Ivonne Carbajal, Plaintiff, v. Home
Depot U.S.A., Inc.; and Validity, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
CV-24-00730-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.).
Plaintiff Ivonne Carbajal brings this class action against retailer
Home Depot. She alleges violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility
and Communication Service Records Act.
The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Defendant uses Everest, an email tracking platform, for
promotional emails it sends to individuals on its subscriber list.
Everest utilizes email tracking pixels that the Plaintiff calls
"spy pixels." A tracking pixel is a transparent image, typically
one pixel high and one pixel wide, embedded in an email. Retailers
use tracking pixels to determine how recipients engage with the
content to better target recipients with future emails.
The Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant's marketing email list
and opened promotional emails she received from the Defendant. The
Plaintiff had no knowledge that the emails contained tracking
pixels, and the Defendant never received the Plaintiff's
authorization to use such pixels or to collect the information the
pixels obtained.
The complaint asserts a single count for violation of the TUCSRA,
A.R.S. Sec. 44-1376 et seq. The TUCSRA makes it unlawful for a
person to knowingly procure a public utility record, a telephone
record or communication service record of any resident of Arizona
without the authorization of the customer to whom the record
pertains or by fraudulent, deceptive or false means. The Plaintiff
focuses on the phrase "communication service record" and claims
that each time she opened a marketing email from the Defendant the
tracking pixel violated the TUCSRA by impermissibly procuring a
"communication service record" related to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant procured her "name"; her
"electronic account identification" or "associated screen name";
"access logs" of the time and place the email was opened; and
"records of the path of an electronic communication between the
point of origin and the point of delivery" by tracking whether the
email was forwarded.
In arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim, the Defendant
asserts that none of the information collected by the tracking
pixels constitutes a "communication service record" under the
TUCSRA.
According to the Court, the Plaintiff fails to address the fact
that the definition of "communication service record" in the TUCSRA
applies only to "subscriber information." She cites no case from
Arizona or elsewhere supporting her novel and broad interpretation
of the TUCSRA.
The Court finds the Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim
under the TUCSRA. It does not allege that Defendant procured
records from Plaintiff's communication service provider. The
conduct at issue -- sending marketing emails and collecting
information through tracking pixels -- simply is not covered by the
TUCSRA, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o43eEq from PacerMonitor.com.
JANSSEN INC: Court Approves Fluoroquinolone Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that K.S. Garcha of Dusevic & Garcha
announces that a Canada-wide settlement ("Settlement") (excluding
residents of Quebec) has been reached with respect to Janssen Inc.,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Janssen Research & Development,
LLC (the "Janssen Defendants") and Bayer Inc. in a proposed class
action relating to the fluoroquinolone prescription drugs Levaquin,
Cipro and Avelox and Peripheral Neuropathy. "Levaquin" means
Levaquin(R) branded (i.e., not generic) levofloxacin tablets and/or
intravenous solution distributed in Canada by the Janssen
Defendants. "Cipro" means all formulations of Cipro(R) branded
(i.e., not generic) ciprofloxacin distributed or licensed in Canada
by Bayer Inc. "Avelox" means all formulations of Avelox(R) branded
(i.e., not generic) moxifloxacin distributed or licensed in Canada
by Bayer Inc.
The Settlement of the Proceeding against the Janssen Defendants and
Bayer Inc. has been approved by the Court. The Janssen Defendants
and Bayer Inc. deny all allegations and deny any wrongdoing or
liability.
If you were prescribed Levaquin, Cipro or Avelox at any time on or
before June 13, 2024 and subsequently experienced Peripheral
Neuropathy (as defined in the Settlement Agreements), you may be
entitled to compensation. As it relates to the Janssen Defendants,
the Settlement provides for the creation of a $525,000 (CDN)
settlement fund which will be used to pay the costs of notice and
administration, compensation for approved claimants, the claims of
Provincial Health Insurers, and Class Counsel legal fees. As it
relates to Bayer Inc., the Settlement provides for the creation of
a $725,000 (CDN) settlement fund which will be used to pay the
costs of notice and administration, compensation for approved
claimants, the claims of Provincial Health Insurers, and Class
Counsel legal fees (together, the "Settlement Amount").
The Court has approved a Compensation Protocol that determines
which Class Members are eligible for compensation and in what
amount. For more information about how compensation is determined,
you should review the long-form Notice, Compensation Protocol,
Settlement Agreements and related documents at
www.garchaandcompany.ca.
To make a claim for compensation under the Settlement Agreements,
you must complete and submit a claim form (including the necessary
supporting evidence detailed in the Compensation Protocol) to Class
Counsel before May 2, 2025. If you do NOT submit your Claim on
time, you will not be eligible for any benefits under the
Settlement Agreement.
The claim form requires that you provide medical records which can
be time consuming to retrieve. It is very important that you start
this process as soon as possible, if you or your lawyer have not
already done so. You may wish to retain a lawyer to assist you in
this process. You can retain a lawyer of your choice.
CONTACT
This is an abbreviated notice. For the complete notice, including
information on benefits that may be available through the
Settlement, and to obtain a copy of the Settlement Agreements and
Compensation Protocol visit www.garchaandcompany.ca or contact
Class Counsel:
K.S. Garcha
DUSEVIC & GARCHA
#210 - 4603 Kingsway
Burnaby, BC V5H 4M4
Tel: 604-436-3315 or 1-844-878-0444 (toll free)
Email: ksgarcha@dusevicgarchalaw.ca
Please do not call the Defendant or the Court about this
Proceeding.
This Notice has been approved by the Supreme Court of British
Columbia. [GN]
KEVIN G. JOHNSON: Class Settlement in Colon, et al Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tom Barber of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida adopted the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson that Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs & Administrative
Expenses be granted in the case captioned as JOHANA COLON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KEVIN G. JOHNSON, et al., Defendants, Case No.:
8:22-cv-888-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.).
On December 17, 2024, the parties filed a joint notice of
non-objection.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), the Court
certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following settlement
class:
All Participants who were issued a distribution from the Plan, or
their Beneficiaries or Alternate Payee, excluding Leigh Anne
Fernandes and Dale Hersey.
The Court finds that this settlement class meets all of the
requirements of Rule 23(a)( and 23(b)(1).
Pursuant to Rules 23(e)(1)(A) and (C), the Court approves of the
settlement agreement and finds it to be fair, reasonable, and
adequate.
The Court finds that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, based on the following findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and determinations of mixed fact/law questions:
a. The settlement resulted from arm's-length negotiations by
experienced and competent counsel overseen by a neutral mediator;
b. The settlement was negotiated only after class counsel had
received substantial discovery from Defendants;
c. The settling parties were well positioned to evaluate the
value of the class action;
d. If the settlement had not been achieved, both Plaintiffs and
Defendants faced the expense, risk, and uncertainty of extended
litigation;
e. The amount of the settlement ($19 million) is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. The settlement amount is within the range
of reasonable settlements that would have been appropriate in this
case, based on the nature of the claims, the potential recovery,
the risks of litigation, and settlements that have been approved
in other similar cases;
f. The class representatives have actively and independently
participated in the class action;
g. The class representatives and class counsel have concluded
that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate;
h. Class members had the opportunity to be heard on all issues
regarding the settlement and release of claims by submitting
objections to the settlement agreement to the Court;
i. There were no objections to the settlement; and
j. The settlement was reviewed by an independent fiduciary,
Fiduciary Counselors, Inc., who has approved the settlement.
The motion for final approval of the settlement agreement is
granted, the settlement is approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate to the plan and the settlement class.
The Court finds that all applicable CAFA requirements have been
satisfied.
The Court finds that an award of attorneys' fees to class counsel
in the amount of $6,333,333.33 (equal to one-third of the gross
settlement amount) is reasonable. The Court further finds that
reimbursement of litigation expenses in the amount of $615,148.25
and payment to Analytics Consulting LLC in the amount of $12,202
for settlement administration expenses is likewise reasonable.
The plan of allocation is approved. The Settlement Administrator
shall have final authority to determine the share of the net
settlement amount to be allocated to each class member in
accordance with the plan of allocation. The Settlement
Administrator is further authorized to direct the escrow agent to
make such distributions from the qualified settlement fund as
necessary to implement the plan of allocation.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9Qm3qU from PacerMonitor.com.
KEYSTONE PACIFIC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Young Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
30-2024-01437890-CU-PO-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Nov. 5,
2024) arises out of the recent data breach involving Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally
identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including Plaintiff's and Class
Members' names, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, and
Social Security numbers.
The current and former KPPM employees are required to entrust the
Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII, without which Defendant
could not perform its regular business activities, in order to
obtain employment or certain employment benefits at Defendant.
The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and
even after the employee-employer relationship has ended. By
obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII
of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant
failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members PII
–– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive
information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due
to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its
utter failure to protect employees' sensitive data, says the suit.
Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII
because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of
Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of
identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain
for their respective lifetimes. In breaching its duties to properly
safeguard employees' PII and give employees timely, adequate notice
of the Data Breach's occurrence, Defendant’s conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes, the Plaintiff contends.
The Defendant is a company that provides homeowners association
management services and solutions to its customers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
402 W Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
- and -
Dean M. Meyer, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 646-8146
E-mail: dmeyer@milberg.com
KINETIC CONTENT: Settles TV Series Class Suit Out of Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Miranda Siwak, writing for Us Weekly, reports that Love Is Blind
has allegedly settled the class action lawsuit started by show alum
Jeremy Hartwell.
According to season 2 participant Haseeb Hussain, the production
company behind Love Is Blind recently settled the case out of
court.
"So, the producers of Love Is Blind just settled their class action
lawsuit and I just got the notice in the mail," Hussain, an
attorney himself, said in a December 2024 TikTok video, holding up
a legal notice. "They are paying a total of $1.4 million to the
class representative, which is [Hartwell], 35 percent to the
attorneys, which is just half a million dollars, which is crazy
because all I'm getting is $4,000, which is the rest of everyone
else from Love Is Blind seasons 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Ultimatum
[seasons] 1 and 2."
According to Hussain, if he "wants more," he can opt out of the
settlement and sue the production company as an individual.
"That would mean a lot more work that I would have to do, so might
just be worth taking the $4 [thousand]," Hussain said in his TikTok
video, noting that the lawsuit had merit because the show
apparently mislabeled the participants as independent contractors
instead of employees.
In Hussain's TikTok comment section, fellow season 2 alum Kyle
Abrams noted that "[his] number was different." Shayne Jansen, for
his part, asked whether he'd also get a sum.
"Probably more than me," Hussain replied.
Abrams, 32, and Jansen, 35, were briefly engaged to Shaina Hurley
and Natalie Lee, respectively, after the Chicago-set season of the
experiment. Hussain and Hartwell, who was the first to file the
lawsuit, both left the pods single.
Us Weekly confirmed in July 2022 that Hartwell sued Netflix and
Kinetic Content, claiming that show producers "intentionally
underpaid" cast members and "deprived them of food, water and
sleep."
"The contracts required contestants to agree that if they left the
show before filming was done, they would be penalized by being
required to pay $50,000 in 'liquidated damages,'" Hartwell's
attorney, Chantal Payton, said in a statement at the time. "With
that being 50 times what some of the cast members would earn during
the entire time that they worked, this certainly had the potential
to instill fear in the cast and enable production to exert even
further control."
Kinetic Content, for its part, denied the allegations.
"Mr. Hartwell's involvement in season 2 of Love is Blind lasted
less than one week," a rep for the production company told Us that
same month. "Unfortunately, for Mr. Hartwell, his journey ended
early after he failed to develop a significant connection with any
other participant. While we will not speculate as to his motives
for filing the lawsuit, there is absolutely no merit to Mr.
Hartwell's allegations."
Neither Hartwell nor Kinetic Content have publicly addressed the
proposed settlement. [GN]
LCPTRACKER INC: Mazmanian Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
---------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mazmanian, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LCPTRACKER, INC., Case No. 8:24-cv-02803 (C.D. Cal.,
Dec. 30, 2024), is brought arising from Defendant's failure to
secure the personally identifiable information ("PII") of Plaintiff
and the members of the proposed Class, where Plaintiff provided his
PII indirectly to Defendant as a condition of receiving employment
with Defendant's client.
On August 20, 2024, Defendant became aware of suspicious activity
on its network. Defendant determined that between August 14 and
August 20, 2024, an unauthorized actor acquired files off its
system, which contained the PII of individuals that was being
stored on Defendant's network ("Data Breach"). On November 22, 2024
Defendant sent a Notice of Data Breach letter ("Notice Letter") to
Plaintiff and Class Members, informing them about the Data Breach.
The PII intruders accessed and infiltrated from Defendant's systems
included individuals' Social Security numbers. As a result of the
Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the PII of
individuals including Plaintiff (and Class Members) was stolen.
Instead, Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class
Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently
failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard PII and by
failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure
of that information. Defendant's woefully inadequate data security
measures made the Data Breach a foreseeable, and even likely,
consequence of its negligence.
The Plaintiff and Class Members would not have provided their
valuable PII had they known that Defendant would make their PII
Internet-accessible, not encrypt personal and sensitive data
elements and not delete the PII it no longer had reason to
maintain. Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seek to hold Defendant
responsible for the injuries they inflicted on Plaintiff and Class
Members due to their impermissibly inadequate data security
measures, and to seek injunctive relief to ensure the
implementation of security measures to protect the PII that remains
in Defendant's possession, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff's PII, including his Social Security number, was
stored on Defendant's systems.
The Defendant is a payroll reporting software, construction site
compliance manager, and workforce solutions provider with offices
in California, Michigan, and Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: cardoso@kolawyers.com
LCPTRACKER INC: McGuinness Files Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LCPTracker, Inc. The
case is styled as Michael McGuinness, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LCPTracker, Inc., Case No.
8:24-cv-02802 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
LCPtracker -- https://lcptracker.com/ -- offers cloud-based SaaS
solutions for certified payroll, construction site compliance, and
workforce reporting.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (858) 209-6941
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
LINDA STRUMPF: Hackshaw Balks at Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Linda Strumpf. The
case is captioned as DAVID HACKSHAW, JR., et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINDA STRUMPF, Case
No. 1:24-cv-08397-ALC (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Act.
Defendant Linda Strumpf is a natural person and an attorney
registered with the
state of New York, bar license # 1327402, with her principal place
of business located at 69 Fox
Run, South Salem, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica Grace Ranucci, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-7578
Email: jranucci@nylag.org
LOWE'S HOME: Hern Files Fraud Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC. The case is captioned as MICHAEL HERN, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00236-KDB-SCR (W.D.N.C., October 30,
2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged fraud violations.
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC is a retail company headquartered in
Mooresville, North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael David Bland, Esq.
David B. Sherman, Jr., Esq.
WEAVER, BENNETT & BLAND
P.O. Box 2570
Matthews, NC 28106
Telephone: (704) 844-1400
Facsimile: (704) 845-1503
Email: dbland@wbbatty.com
dsherman@wbbatty.com
- and -
Daniel Hattis, Esq.
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 233-8628
(425) 233-8650
Email: dan@hattislaw.com
pkl@hattislaw.com
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Stays Discovery in McCrary Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York stayed discovery and other
proceedings in the case captioned as MARGARET McCRARY, Plaintiff, -
against - MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
Defendant, Case No. 23-CV-10768 (VM) pending the resolution of the
motion to consolidate before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
On October 30, 2024, Safron Capital Corporation and Brickman
Investments Inc. moved before the JPML to consolidate and transfer
twenty-one class action lawsuits, including this action, involving
allegations of unreasonably low interest rates on cash sweep
programs.
Plaintiff Margaret McCrary and Defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated separately opposed the Motion to
Consolidate. Thereafter, the JPML scheduled a hearing on
consolidation for January 30, 2025. Pending before this Court is
Merrill Lynch's Motion to Strike and Stay Discovery which is fully
briefed.
The Court considered five factors in deciding whether a stay is
appropriate: (1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced
against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private
interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the
courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation; and (5) the public interest."
The Court finds that all five factors weigh in favor of a stay.
Judge Marrero explains the hearing for consolidation will be
'relatively soon' and 'a short stay will not prejudice plaintiff.'
Second, permitting this action to move forward when it may be
transferred to the MDL would prejudice Defendant 'by creating the
risk [it] will be subject to duplicative proceedings.' Finally, the
remaining factors support a stay, most notably because "a stay
serves the judicial and public interest in letting the JPML decide
if the interests in efficiency and economy favor consolidation and
transfer.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QTNzyn
MONSANTO COMPANY: Chandler Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Helen Chandler, individually and as
Representative of the Estate of Doyle T. Chandler, deceased, and
others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No.
4:24-cv-01602 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on Dec. 30, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09531-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for
Product Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara K. King, Esq.
THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM
940 Lincoln Street
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 376-6360
Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com
NANCY NAVARRETTA: Court Narrows Claims in Lindsay et, al. Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sarala V. Nagala of the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied in part and granted in part the
motion filed by the defendants to dismiss the plaintiffs' third
amended complaint in the case captioned as ISAIAH LINDSAY, LING XIN
WU, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NANCY NAVARRETTA, in her official capacity as the
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Mental Health
Services, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-CV-1518 (SVN) (D.
Conn.).
Plaintiffs, individuals who were acquitted by the Connecticut state
courts after pleading the affirmative defense of not guilty by
reason of mental disease or defect in their criminal cases, have
brought this action asserting disability discrimination under Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131 et
seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
794.
The TAC names eight Defendants: Nancy Navarretta, in her official
capacity as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of
Mental Health and Addiction Services; Jose Crego, in his official
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Whiting Forensic Hospital;
Michael Pepper, in his official capacity as chair of the
Psychiatric Security Review Board; and John Bonetti, Mark
Kirschner, Cheryl Abrams, Wakana Hirota, and Renesha Nichols, in
their official capacities as members of the PSRB. The TAC alleges,
generally, that the Plaintiffs no longer need hospital-level care,
and should instead be treated in a more integrated community
setting.
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the TAC for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Underlying each
of their 12(b)(6) arguments is the assertion that Plaintiffs are
attempting to use their mental disabilities as an end run around
the Temporary Leave process, which is tied to their criminal
conduct.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated
claims for relief under both the ADA and Section 504 of the RA. It
says the Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that their treatment
professionals have determined that community placement is
appropriate, such that their integration mandate claim survives the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. Drawing all reasonable inferences in
the Plaintiffs' favor, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded facts suggesting Defendants discriminated
against the Plaintiffs by reason of their disabilities for denying
them access to community services in the most integrated setting
while on TL.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated the
reasonable modification requirement of Title II of the ADA and that
Commissioner Navarretta and Defendant Crego have violated the
reasonable modification requirement of Section 504 of the RA by
failing to make reasonable modifications to their policies,
practices, or procedures that would ensure timely access to
community mental health services and treatment in the most
integrated setting for acquittees who are deemed ready for TL.
The Plaintiffs allege that Commissioner Navarretta's methods of
administering DMHAS's community mental health system discriminates
against the Plaintiffs by subjecting them to unnecessary
segregation in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of
the RA.
The Court holds that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts
to support their reasonable modifications claim.
To the extent the Plaintiffs intended to allege a methods of
administration claim against Defendant Crego and the PSRB
Defendants, such a claim is dismissed because the Plaintiffs have
not adequately pleaded facts suggesting Defendant Crego and the
PSRB Defendants' administrations of WFH and PSRB programs,
respectively, discriminate against the Plaintiffs on the basis of
their disabilities.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs have stated a plausible methods of
administration claim against Commissioner Navarretta only.
Class Certification
Separately, the Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a class
defined as "all acquittees who (1) are, or will be in the future,
committed to the jurisdiction of the [PSRB], (2) are assigned Full
Level 4 privileges, and (3) have been determined by a WFH treatment
professional as being ready for Temporary Leave."
The Court finds the named Plaintiffs have standing to act on behalf
of the class; have demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence
that the numerosity, commonality, adequacy, and typicality
requirements of Rule 23(a) are met; and have likewise demonstrated
by the same standard that injunctive or declaratory relief would be
appropriate for the class as a whole.
Having determined that Plaintiffs' proposed class is ascertainable,
the Court turns to whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the four
requirements of Rule 23(a). The Plaintiffs argue that they have met
these requirements, as all proposed class members are suffering or
will suffer harm from the Defendants' allegedly unlawful practices
that can be redressed by a common remedy. The Defendants oppose
class certification, primarily arguing that a one-size-fits-all
approach would not work with acquittees who have such varying and
complex mental health issues. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs,
and concludes that they have satisfied the class certification
requirements of Rule 23(a).
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the TAC is largely denied, with
respect to their subject matter jurisdiction arguments and their
challenges to the Plaintiffs' integration mandate claim against all
the Defendants, reasonable modifications claim against Defendants
Navarretta and Crego, and methods of administration claim against
Defendant Navarretta. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted
in part to the extent the Plaintiffs bring a methods of
administration claim against Defendant Crego and the PSRB
Defendants. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted. Connecticut Legal Rights Project and Disability Rights
Connecticut are appointed as joint class counsel in this action.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sfjKc2
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Monestier Appeals Gibson Suit Deal Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TANYA MONESTIER is 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, the
Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs was granted and will be paid in accordance
with the settlement agreements.
The appellate case is captioned Sitzer, et al. v. National
Association of Realtors, et al., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 23, 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
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Wang Appeals Final OK of Gibson Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
HAO ZHE WANG is 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, the
Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs was granted and will be paid in accordance
with the settlement agreements.
The appellate case is captioned Sitzer, et al. v. National
Association of Realtors, et al., in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on December 23, 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
NESTLE USA: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Falcone Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NESTLE USA, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting
class certification in the lawsuit entitled Marie Falcone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00723-L-DEB, in the U.S. District Court for Southern
District of California.
The Plaintiff brought this class action complaint against the
Defendant for alleged false, deceptive, and misleading advertising,
labeling, and marketing of its chocolate chip and cocoa mix
products in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA) and the Unfair Competition Law.
On Jan. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.
On May 3, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to exclude or strike
the declarations of experts Roger Mendez, William Robert Ingersoll,
and Andrea Lynn Matthews.
On Sept. 26, 2024, Judge M. James Lorenz entered an Order granting
the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and denying the Defendant's
motion to strike. The Court held that the Plaintiff and her counsel
meet Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy requirements, and that the Plaintiff's
counsel meets the criteria of Rule 23(g)(1)(A).
The appellate case is captioned Falcone v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case
No. 24-7707, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
filed on December 23, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 7, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 7, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MARIE FALCONE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Helen I. Zeldes, Esq.
Joshua Adam Fields, Esq.
Aya Dardari, Esq.
Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
Catherine Sweetser, Esq.
SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS HOFFMAN & ZELDES, LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
- and -
Michael Reese, Esq.
George Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street
New York, NY 10025
Defendant-Appellant NESTLE USA, INC. is represented by:
James Albert Kelly, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4200
Denver, CO 80202
- and -
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
Christopher Chorba, Esq.
Perlette Michele Jura, Esq.
Timothy William Loose, Esq.
Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
333 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 5300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
NEUEHEALTH INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With New Enterprise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- NeueHealth, Inc. (NYSE: NEUE), relating to the proposed merger
with New Enterprise Associates. Under the terms of the agreement,
holders of NeueHealth common stock will receive $7.33 per share in
cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/neuehealth-inc-neue/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Singular Genomics Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: OMIC), relating to
the proposed merger with Deerfield Management Company, L.P. Under
the terms of the agreement, Deerfield will acquire Singular
Genomics in an all-cash transaction for $20.00 per share.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/singular-genomics-systems-inc-omic/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Nordstrom, Inc. (NYSE: JWN), relating to the proposed merger
with Norse Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, each
share of Nordstrom’s common stock will be converted to $24.25 in
cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/nordstrom-inc-jwn/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Despegar.com, Corp. (NYSE: DESP), relating to the proposed
merger with Prosus. Under the terms of the agreement, Prosus will
acquire Despegar for $19.50 per share in an all-cash transaction,
representing an enterprise value of approximately $1.7 billion for
Despegar.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/despegar-com-corp-desp/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Attorney Advertising. (C) 2024 Monteverde & Associates PC. The law
firm responsible for this advertisement is Monteverde & Associates
PC (www.monteverdelaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Pellettieri Sues Over Restrooms' Privacy Concerns
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENDA PELLETTIERI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S.J.; NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC.;
NORTHWELL HEALTHCARE, INC.; NORTHWELL HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC;
NORTHWELL HEALTH PHYSICIAN PARTNERS; NORTHWELL HEALTH SLEEP LAB,
LLC; NORTHWELL HEALTH SLEEP HOLDINGS, LLC; NORTHSHORE HOSPITAL
MANAGEMENT, LLC; and JOHN DOE 1, Defendants, Case No. 529375/2024
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., October 30, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendant for negligence, violation of the New York General
Business Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring, and
injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to prevent cameras,
video recorders, similar recording devices, and/or an instrument
that can be used to surreptitiously observe a person to be placed
in different bathrooms/changing rooms/sleep suites at the Sleep
Disorders Center, which is located at 155 Community Drive, Great
Neck, New York. According to the complaint, the recording devices
were used to view, photograph, record, and/or video individuals in
various stages of undress and/or while utilizing the restrooms and
during moments of expected privacy. As a result of the Defendants'
unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered, and
will continue to suffer, harm, emotional distress, and damages.
Northwell Health, Inc. is a healthcare provider in New York.
Northwell Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare provider in New York.
Northwell Health Partners, LLC is a healthcare provider in New
York.
Northwell Health Physician Partners is a healthcare provider in New
York.
Northwell Health Sleep Lab, LLC is a healthcare provider in New
York.
Northwell Health Sleep Holdings, LLC is a healthcare provider in
New York.
Northshore Hospital Management, LLC is a healthcare provider in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Rubenstein, Esq.
Steven J. German, Esq.
GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 704-2020
NS 360: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. NS 360, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10006
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.naturalstacks.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
NS 360, INC., operates the Natural Stacks online retail store, as
well as the Natural Stacks 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
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
NUTRANEXT BUSINESS: Knowles Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlton Knowles, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. NUTRANEXT BUSINESS, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-10008 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.naturalvitality.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
NUTRANEXT BUSINESS, LLC, operates the Natural Vitality online
retail store, as well as the Natural Vitality 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
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
OUR TOWN HOSPITALITY: Valentine Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Valentine, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. OUR TOWN HOSPITALITY, LLC (d/b/a The Georgian Terrace),
Case No. 1:24-cv-05985-LMM (N.D. Ga., Dec. 30, 2024), is brought
for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of
operating an illegal tip pool, illegally distributing tips to
Defendant's managers in contravention of federal law, for illegally
withheld tips from the tip pool, all resulting in unpaid minimum
wages, retaliation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the
FLSA.
The Plaintiff and the collective members received tips and were
required to contribute a portion of their tips to a mandatory tip
pool. The Defendant operated an illegal tip pool in that Defendant
withheld a portion of the tips from the tip pool and distributed
those tips to Defendants' managers, who is/are not customarily and
regularly tipped employees, in violation of the FLSA.
Between August and September of 2023, Plaintiff raised complaints
about the improper tip distribution and nonpayment of his tips to
Defendant's management and Corporate Human Resource personnel.
Following Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant retaliated against him
by ultimately terminating him the day after corporate management
came to the workplace to speak to employees. As a result of these
improper common policies and practices, Defendant illegally took a
tip credit under federal law in regard to its bartenders and
servers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's from approximately February
2022 to September 2023.
The Defendant is a hotel management company that owns and operates
The Georgian Terrace hotel in the State of Georgia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
20 N. Orange Ave, 15th Floor
Orlando, FL 32801
P.O. Box 530244
Atlanta, GA 30353-0244
Phone: (407) 420-1414
Fax: (407) 245-3401
Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Silva Sues Over Improper Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
ELI SILVA; and ASHLEY GARDINER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC.; and
PAYPAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-09510 (N.D. Cal., Dec.
30, 2024) is an action alleging that the Defendant is engaged in
business practices violating the California's Unfair Competition
Law.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that PayPal committed unfair
business practices by using the Honey browser extension to steal
credit for sales referrals and thereby receive commission payments
that rightfully belong to Plaintiffs and Subclass members.
PayPal wrongfully deprives the Plaintiffs and Subclass members of
monies they rightfully earned as the true originators of sales
arising from their affiliate marketing links. PayPal programmed the
Honey browser extension to systematically appropriate commissions
that belong to online marketers like Plaintiffs and Class members.
It does so by substituting its own affiliate marketing cookie in
place of the online marketer's affiliate marketing cookie, and this
happens even though the customer used the online marketer's
specific affiliate web link to navigate to the purchase page, says
the suit.
PayPal Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, provides technology platform that enables
digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers and merchants.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Simon S. Grille, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
Email: dsharp@girardsharp.com
apolk@girardsharp.com
sgrille@girardsharp.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
ahoneycutt@milberg.com
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Faces Cuellar Class Suit Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------------
MARK A. CUELLAR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Case No. 5:24-cv-01476 (W.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2024) contends
that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part,
by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On September 2024, the Plaintiff allegedly failed to make timely
payments to Defendant and Plaintiff's account fell into a
delinquent status.
As a result of the alleged unpaid balance, Defendant started
placing voluminous collections calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone.
It was clear to Plaintiff that the Defendant's voicemails utilized
an artificial and/or prerecorded voice because:
(1) all voicemails contained the identical message;
(2) all voicemails were precisely the same duration;
(3) the voicemails were all monotone and were conspicuously
not left by a live representative;
(4) none of the voicemails identified Plaintiff by name;
(5) the voicemail repeated each time;
(6) all voicemails referred Plaintiff to the same toll-free
number; and
(7) none of the voicemails identified the individual that was
calling by name.
In November of 2024, after submitting to the robocalls for months,
Plaintiff, fed up with the invasive robocalls, answered one of
Defendant's calls and requested that Defendant cease its collection
calls. Despite the Plaintiff's request that the robocalls cease,
Defendant continued placing robocalls to Plaintiff’s cellular
phone, says the suit.
The Plaintiff is a natural person, over 18-years-of-age, who at all
times relevant resided in Pleasanton, Texas.
The Defendant is a federal credit union who provides financial
lending to service members with its principal place of business in
McLean, Virginia.
JOHN DOES 1-10 are third party vendors/agents that Defendant
engages to collect defaulted vehicle loans issued and/or serviced
by Defendant.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Telephone: (630) 575-8180
E-mail: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
PERRIN BERNARD: Mendoza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PERRIN BERNARD
SUPOWITZ, LLC. The case is styled as Ruben Mendoza, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PERRIN BERNARD
SUPOWITZ, LLC, Case No. 24STCV34543 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Dec. 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Perrin Bernard Supowitz Inc. Individual FoodService distributes
food products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd., Fl. 1
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4973
Phone: 310-438-5555
PHARMERICA LOGISTICS: Settlement in Berner Suit Denied Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied the plaintiff's
unopposed motion to approve settlement in the case captioned as
JEFF BERNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, PLAINTIFF v. PHARMERICA LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC,
DEFENDANT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-00142-CRS (W.D. Ky.)
The parties seek the Court's approval to settle this matter not
only on behalf of the named plaintiff, Jeff Berner, but also on
behalf of all others he has deemed to be similarly situated to
himself. More specifically, they seek to settle claims for all
pharmacists employed by Defendant who were paid straight time for
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201, et seq. They also seek to settle all class claims brought
by Berner pursuant to the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 4111.03(a). Berner's OMFWSA claims are
based on the same essential facts.
Berner has alleged that he and at least 427 other pharmacists whom
Defendant employed were never paid for overtime -- weekly hours
worked over 40 -- at the appropriate rate of 1.5 times their
regular hourly rate. The Court finds despite Berner's depiction of
a lengthy process undertaken by his attorney to identify 427
similarly situated pharmacists, a process made feasible by the
Defendant's supply of payroll records, the Motion is both premature
and improper.
FLSA
According to the Court, while Berner has alleged that the Defendant
violated Sec. 207(a)(1) of the FLSA with respect to his list of 427
other pharmacists, there is no record evidence before the Court
which establishes a strong likelihood of such numerous violations.
Nor is there any proof that the Defendant agrees to the alleged
violations or at the very least agrees that it has exposure with
respect to the other putative 427 claimants, the Court notes.
The Court finds that settlements of FLSA claims are matters of
private agreement that do not require a court's approval and
further finds that it does not have the authority to approve FLSA
settlements. For this reason, a motion to approve the settlement of
an FLSA claim -- collective or otherwise -- should not be brought.
OMFWSA
Berner styled his Complaint under the OMFWSA as a putative class
action, but he has never moved for class certification. His
tendered settlement agreement focuses a reader's attention on his
FLSA action, using defined terms that draw attention to those
claims. Yet, his tendered settlement agreement also proposes a
settlement of all class claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 under the OMFWSA or otherwise -- that have been or
could have been asserted in the Lawsuit. To the extent that Berner
is purporting to seek approval to settle all class claims, his
Motion is equally premature and improper, the Court finds.
According to the Court, while Rule 23 permits settlement of a class
proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement, Berner has not
followed the requisites for doing so.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at from
PacerMonitor.com.
PINTEREST INC: Court Tosses Davis's Copyright Infringement Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the motion filed by Pinterest, Inc. to dismiss the plaintiffs'
third amended complaint in the case captioned as MAUREEN
HARRINGTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PINTEREST, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:20-cv-05290-EJD (N.D. Calif.).
After a series of motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs Maureen Harrington
III and Harold Davis now bring one cause of action for direct
copyright infringement against Defendant Pinterest, Inc. on behalf
of themselves and a class of other professional photographers whose
federally registered copyrighted works were publicly displayed by
Pinterest in notifications outside of its website.
The TAC adds Davis as a plaintiff and it narrows the alleged
instances of infringement. Davis is a digital artist and
professional photographer known for his floral arrangements. He is
the sole copyright owner of his photographic works, which are
registered with the United States Copyright Office.
Harrington previously claimed that Pinterest's conduct within its
platform infringed on his copyrighted works. Now Plaintiffs only
challenge Pinterest's conduct outside of its platform, namely,
Pinterest's notifications sent to users by mobile push
notifications, desktop push notifications, and SMS. Plaintiffs
essentially allege that Pinterest published their copyrighted works
without permission when it sent users copies of their images with
embedded links.
In its motion to dismiss, Pinterest argues that the TAC must be
dismissed as to Davis under the doctrine of claim preclusion, and
dismissed in its entirety because Pinterest's conduct is protected
under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe-harbor provision.
Central to both arguments is a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Davis
v. Pinterest, Inc. ("Davis II"), No. 22-15804, 2023 WL 5695992, at
*1 (9th Cir. Sept. 5, 2023), which affirmed a district court's
order granting summary judgment in favor of Pinterest and against
Davis in Davis v. Pinterest, Inc. ("Davis I"), 601 F. Supp. 3d 514,
518 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
According to the Court, in affirming Davis I, the Ninth Circuit
confirmed that the DMCA section 512(c) immunizes Pinterest from
liability for displaying the user-uploaded images hosted on its
website and mobile application. It also held that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in barring Davis from bringing
his notification-based infringement claims.
The Court grants Pinterest's motion to dismiss Davis from this
case. It denies Pinterest's motion to dismiss Harrington's
remaining claim for direct copyright infringement.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=e0QOdl from PacerMonitor.com.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Appeals Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order
in the lawsuit entitled Gabriela Mendoza, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-01382-DMG-JPR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for false and misleading
representations in violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and False
Advertising Law ("FAL").
On Apr. 20, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.
On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.
On May 12, 2023, the Court denied without prejudice the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.
On June 2, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's first amended complaint, which Judge Dolly M. Gee
granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 20, 2023. It was
granted, without leave to amend, as to the negligent
misrepresentation claim, and the claims for equitable restitution
under the UCL, CLRA, and FAL. The motion to dismiss was otherwise
denied.
On Jan. 24, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.
On Dec. 19, 2024, the petition for permission to appeal is
granted.
The appellate case is captioned Mendoza v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 24-7702, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on December 23, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 7, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 7, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee GABRIELA MENDOZA, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Ronald Marron, Esq.
Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
Kas Gallucci, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
QUIDELORTHO CORP: Teamsters Funds Selected as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the motion of the Teamsters
Funds for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of Labaton
Keller Sucharow LLP as lead counsel in the case captioned as
BRISTOL COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, -v- QUIDELORTHO CORPORATION
f/k/a QUIDEL CORPORATION, DOUGLAS BRYANT, JOSEPH BUSKY, and RANDALL
STEWARD, Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-2804 (MKV) (S.D.N.Y.).
In April 2024, Plaintiff Bristol County Retirement System filed a
class action complaint against QuidelOrtho Corporation, formerly
known as Quidel Corporation, and three executives. The Securities
Action Complaint purports to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired QuidelOrtho common
stock between Feb. 18, 2022 and April 1, 2024, inclusive.
QuidelOrtho provides tests for the detection and diagnosis of
various respiratory diseases and other medical conditions,"
including, recently, COVID-19 tests.
The Securities Action Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, Quidel Corporation completed a merger with Ortho Clinical
Diagnostics Holdings plc, and, meanwhile, COVID-19 was
transitioning from pandemic to endemic status. The pleading further
alleges that the defendants in the Securities Action misled
investors about the company's ability to maintain revenue from
COVID-19 tests, and investors suffered significant losses from the
decline in the market value of QuidelOrtho stock.
Shortly after the Securities Action was filed, Plaintiff Matthew
Whitfield separately filed a shareholder derivative action on
behalf of QuidelOrtho against a number of members of the company's
board of directors, as well as the QuidelOrtho executives named as
defendants in the Securities Action. Whitfield filed a Statement of
Relatedness to the Securities Action which accurately represents
that the Whitfield Complaint asserts claims based on the same
events and transactions during the same period as are alleged in
the securities action. Thereafter, Plaintiff Steven Pinkney also
separately filed a shareholder derivative action and a Statement of
Relatedness to the Securities Action. The Court accepted the
shareholder derivative actions filed by Whitfield and Pinkney as
cases related to the Securities Action.
Meanwhile, in the Securities Action, Central States, Southeast and
Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 710
Pension Fund timely filed a motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and approval of the Teamsters Funds' selection of Labaton
Keller Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel. The Teamsters Funds argue that
they have the largest financial interest in the Securities Action
and easily satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. Together with their
motion and supporting papers, the Teamsters Funds submitted a
proposed order to consolidate all cases that arises out of the
subject matter of the Securities Action.
Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan simultaneously filed a
competing motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and approval of
NSHEPP's selection of Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel. NSHEPP
thereafter filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to the motion of the
Teamsters Funds, conceding that the Teamsters Funds have a larger
financial interest in the Securities Action than NSHEPP and satisfy
the requirements of Rule 23. NSHEPP did not, however, withdraw its
own motion. The Teamsters Funds oppose NSHEPP's motion.
After the close of the briefing of the Lead Plaintiff motion
practice in the Securities Action, Whitfield and Pinkney each filed
a proposed order to consolidate the Derivative Actions and to
appoint their attorneys as co-lead counsel of the consolidated case
[Whitfield v. Buechler et al., 24-cv-3176; Pinkney v. Bryant et
al., 24-cv-4753]. They did not address the possibility of
consolidation with the Securities Action, notwithstanding that the
Court had accepted the Derivative Actions as cases related to the
Securities Action and the Teamsters Funds had proposed to
consolidate all related cases.
The Court held Oral Argument to evaluate (A) the most adequate
plaintiff to represent the interests of class members in the
Securities Action, and (B) the most efficient way to manage all
three cases going forward, including whether to consolidate the
Securities Action and the Derivative Actions, or the Derivative
Actions only, and whether to stay the Derivative Actions through
the pleading stage of the Securities Action. Counsel for the
Teamsters Funds and counsel for the plaintiffs in the Derivative
Actions all agreed that the Securities Action should not be
consolidated with the Derivate Actions. Defense counsel requested a
stay of the Derivate Actions pending resolution of a contemplated
motion to dismiss the Securities Action.
The motion of the Teamsters Funds for appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and approval of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as Lead Counsel is
granted. The motion of NSHEPP for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
approval of Pomerantz LLP as Lead Counsel is denied.
The Court concludes that the Teamsters Funds are the most adequate
plaintiff based on the statutory criteria and the parties'
submissions.
The Derivative Actions [24-cv-3176; 24-cv-4753] shall be
consolidated under the caption In Re QuidelOrtho Corporation
Derivative Litigation, 24-cv-3176. All future submissions must be
filed in that case. The Court grants the request of the plaintiffs
in the Derivative Actions to appoint their attorneys co-lead
counsel in the consolidated case. The deadline to file a
consolidated complaint is Jan. 3, 2025.
According to the Court, the two Derivative Actions clearly should
be consolidated, even though there is not complete overlap in the
claims they assert. The Court declines, however, to consolidate the
Securities Action with the Derivative Actions at this time.
In Re QuidelOrtho Corporation Derivative Litigation, 24-cv3176 is
stayed. Co-lead counsel must promptly file a motion to lift the
stay if the Securities Action survives a motion to dismiss. In the
interim, QuidelOrtho must advise co-lead counsel if any new
derivative actions are filed.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oofdGe from PacerMonitor.com.
REALNETWORKS: Plaintiff Must Submit Amended Complaint by Jan. 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kymberly K. Evanson of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington granted the stipulated motion
filed by the parties in the case captioned as BARBARA STROUGO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. REALNETWORKS, INC., ROBERT GLASER, BRUCE A. JAFFE,
CHRIS JONES, DAWN G. LEPORE, ERIK PRUSCH, MICHAEL B. SLADE, and TIM
WAN, Defendants, NO. 2:24-cv-00297-KKE (W.D. Wash.).
This stipulation is entered into by and between Lead Plaintiff
Richard Brender and defendants RealNetworks, Inc., Robert Glaser,
Bruce Jaffe, Chris Jones, Dawn Lepore, Erik Prusch, Michael Slade,
and Tim Wan, by and through their counsel.
On March 4, 2024, former named plaintiff, Barbara Strougo, filed
this action against Defendants, with a complaint under seal
asserting claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The
Complaint was filed under seal because it included confidential
information provided by the Defendants to Strougo as well as to
Lead Plaintiff in connection with a prior books and records
demands.
On May 3, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and approval of lead counsel.
On Oct. 31, 2024, the Court entered an order appointing Lead
Plaintiff as lead plaintiff and his chosen counsel co-lead counsel
in this Action.
On Nov. 15, 2024, the Court entered an agreed scheduling order.
Lead Plaintiff and Defendants have conferred regarding the next
steps in the Action, to request the release to the Parties of the
unredacted Complaint filed under seal by Strougo and to amend the
schedule as follows:
1. Lead Plaintiff shall file his Amended Class Action Complaint
by Jan. 14, 2025;
2. Defendants shall file an answer, motion to dismiss, or
response thereto by Feb. 28, 2025;
3. If Defendants file a motion to dismiss as their response,
Lead Plaintiff shall file any opposition thereto by April 14, 2025;
and
4. Defendants shall file any reply to Lead Plaintiff’s
opposition by May 30, 2025.
The previous schedule is vacated.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fXOoeW from PacerMonitor.com.
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff:
Roger M. Townsend, Esq.
BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC
1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 652-8660
E-mail: rtownsend@bjtlegal.com
- and -
Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
OF COUNSEL
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
Fax: (212) 202-7880
E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
1100 Poydras Street, Suite 960
New Orleans, LA 70163
Tel: (504) 455-1400
Fax: (504) 455-1498
E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com
Counsel for Defendants:
Randall T. Thomsen, Esq.
Shane P. Cramer, Esq.
Caleb T. Mathena, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 623-1700
Fax: (206) 623-8717
E-mail: randall.thomsen@bclplaw.com
shane.cramer@bclplaw.com
caleb.mathena@bclplaw.com
RED LIONS: Ardiles Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valentina Diaz Ardiles, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Red Lions Food Corp. d/b/a/ Anatolia
Mediterranean & Grill, Mahmut Unver a/k/a Max Unver, and John
Yilmaz a/k/a Canturk Yilmaz, Case No. 2:24-cv-08891 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
30, 2024) seeks to recover compensation for wages paid at less than
the statutory minimum wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff seeks to prosecute her FLSA claims as a collective
action on behalf of a collective group of persons defined as
follows:
"All persons who are or were formerly employed by the
Defendants
in the United States at any time since December 30, 2021, to the
entry of judgment in this case, who were restaurant employees,
and who were not paid statutory minimum wages and/or overtime
compensation at rates at least one-and-one-half times the
regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek."
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants at Anatolia Mediterranean
& Grill restaurant during two separate periods, first from March
2020 to November 2021, and again from May 2024 to July 2024, as a
waitress and cashier.
The Defendants owned and operated a restaurant located at 185-183
Hempstead Ave, West Hempstead, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
REGIONAL CARE: Cook Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
---------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Cook, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGIONAL CARE, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-03240 (D. Neb.,
Dec. 31, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' ("Class Members," as defined infra)
personally identifying information ("PII") and personal health
information ("PHI").
On September 18, 2024, Defendant detected suspicious activity on
its computer network. Defendant identified individuals whose
personal information may be involved and determined that the data
at issue includes "full name, dates of birth, Social Security
number, medical information, and health insurance information."
("Data Breach").
The Defendant began sending out notice letters to impacted persons,
on December 16, 2024. Based on Plaintiff's and Class Members'
beliefs, Defendant is the entity with primary responsibility for
this Data Breach. The Defendant notified approximately 225,728
individuals of the Data Breach.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII/PHI--and failed to encrypt or redact this highly
sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted PII/PHI was
compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and
omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
PII/PHI because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff provided PII/PHI to Defendant or otherwise had their
PII/PHI provided to Defendant.
The Defendant is a third-party health plan administrator that
provides services to more than 25,000 members in Nebraska and
across the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
REGIONAL CARE: Nguyen Sues Over Preventable Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Bacmy Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REGIONAL CARE, INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-05010 (D. Neb.,
Dec. 30, 2024), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible
for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in
the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected
computer network.
On September 18, 2024, RCI detected suspicious activity on its
computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent
forensic investigation, RCI determined that cybercriminals
infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and
thereby gained access to its data files ("Data Breach"). The
investigation further determined that, through this infiltration,
cybercriminals potentially accessed and copied files containing the
sensitive personal information of 225,728 individuals.
According to RCI, the personal information accessed by
cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable
information ("PII") and protected health information "PHI"),
including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, medical
information, and health insurance information (collectively,
"Personal Information"). As part of its business, and in order to
gain profits, Defendant obtained and stored the Personal
Information of Plaintiff and Class members. By taking possession
and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information,
Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the Personal
Information of Plaintiff and the Class.
The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of
Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and
protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to
access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber,
exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it.
The Defendant's misconduct--failing to implement adequate and
reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members'
Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach,
failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach,
failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have
adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal
Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of
the Data Breach--caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff
and Class members across the United States, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff entrusted his Personal Information to Defendant.
The Defendant is a is a third-party administrative (TPA) company
that provides customized health plan solutions for businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amanda Brooke Murphy
MURPHY LAW FIRM
4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Phone: (405) 389-4989
Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com
SABRE GLBL: Fails to Protect Employees' Info, Ethridge-Delucca Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Ethridge-Delucca, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sabre GLBL Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-03262-E
(N.D. Tex., Dec. 30, 2024) arises out of the recent data breach
alleging that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard
the personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members’ names, dates of birth, employment
related information, financial account numbers, passports, driver's
licenses, national ID numbers, and Social Security numbers.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
PII of Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and
equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that
information from unauthorized access and intrusion, the lawsuit
says.
The Defendant's investigation concluded that the PII compromised in
the Data Breach included Plaintiff’s and approximately 29,000
other individuals' information. The Defendant disregarded the
rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to implement and maintain
adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the PII of
Plaintiff and Class Members was safeguarded, the Plaintiff
contends.
Plaintiff Dianne Ethridge-Delucca is a natural resident and citizen
of Raymond, Washington.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of
Defendant.
The Defendant is a software and tech company that serves the global
travel industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, Texas 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 879-8200
Facsimile: (786) 879-7520
E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com
SAINT XAVIER: Faces LoBurgio Class Suit in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Saint Xavier
University. The case is captioned as LoBurgio v. Saint Xavier
University, Case No. 1:24-cv-03094-GPG-STV (N.D. Ill., Nov. 5,
2024).
The suit demand $75,000 in damages.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Lindsay C. Jenkins.
Plaintiff Loburgio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
JOSHUA JON SANFORD, ESQ
Sanford Law Firm, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 221-0088
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: ecfnotices@sanfordlawfirm.com
SCAN HEALTH PLAN: Allen Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SCAN HEALTH PLAN. The
case is styled as Cecelia Allen, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SCAN HEALTH PLAN, Case No. 24STCV34496
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 30, 2024).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
SCAN -- https://www.scanhealthplan.com/ -- offers a safety net of
extended home and personal care services such as bathing and
feeding, housekeeping, home meal delivery, emergency response, and
adult day-care.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Sarah Hannah Cohen, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com
SH RESIDENTIAL: Building Trades Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SH Residential
Holdings, LLC, et al. The case is captioned as BUILDING TRADES
PENSION FUND OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. SH RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, et
al., Case No. 2024-1138-NAC (Del. Ch., November 4, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duties.
SH Residential Holdings, LLC is a residential developer based in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
Brendan Sullivan, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-2540
Facsimile: (302) 573-2529
SIX FLAGS: Labrake, et al Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anne M. Nardacci of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted in part Six Flags
Entertainment Corporation's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in the case captioned as HEATHER LABRAKE, STEPHANIE SMITH, and
MARCY DONOHUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION d/b/a
SIX FLAGS GREAT ESCAPE LODGE, Defendant, Case No. 8:24-cv-00356
(AMN/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs' amended complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs Heather Labrake, Stephanie Smith, and Marcy Donohue
bring this putative class action pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2), against defendant
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation d/b/a Six Flags Great Escape
Lodge, alleging violations of the New York Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law, and challenging purportedly undisclosed fees charged
by Defendant to consumers who purchased tickets through its
website.
Non-Party HWP Development, LLC is a New York limited liability
company that Defendant contends owned and operated the Lodge at all
relevant times. HWP is an indirect subsidiary of Defendant.
The Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Texas. It is a holding company that, with its
consolidated subsidiaries, owns and operates regional theme parks
and water parks, including the Great Escape Lodge in New York. It
is also alleged to operate a website,
www.sixflagsgreatescapelodge.com, through which consumers may
purchase tickets for the Lodge.
The Plaintiffs are all individual consumers and New York citizens.
Each purchased tickets to the Lodge through the Defendant's
website, sometime between March 29, 2023 and September 22, 2023.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals
who purchased tickets to the Lodge through the Defendant's website
on or after August 29, 2022, as well as a subclass of individuals
in New York State who similarly purchased tickets. They allege that
there are more than 100 class members.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendant's website sold at
least 10,000 tickets during the Class Period, and that it is liable
for a minimum of fifty dollars in statutory damages for each ticket
sold. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory and other monetary relief,
injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief, and costs and
attorneys' fees on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the New York
Subclass.
The Motion seeks dismissal of the Amended Complaint (i) under Rule
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (ii) under
Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join a party. As to the portion of the
Motion based on Rule 12(b)(1), the Defendant argues that the Court
does not have subject matter jurisdiction because HWP, not the
Defendant, is the entity that allegedly injured the Plaintiffs. The
Plaintiffs offer no response to Defendant's jurisdictional
argument. In fact, the Plaintiffs only oppose the portion of the
Motion based on Rule 12(b)(7). As a result, the Defendant contends
that the Plaintiff has conceded the absence of federal subject
matter jurisdiction and the Amended Complaint should be dismissed.
The Court agrees.
Additionally, the Court notes that the section of the Amended
Complaint addressing jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d) fails to sufficiently allege that CAFA's matter in
controversy requirement is satisfied. The Amended Complaint asserts
that the matter in controversy exceeds $5 million because
Defendant's website sold at least 10,000 tickets during the Class
Period, and the Defendant is liable for a minimum of fifty dollars
in statutory damages for each ticket sold. Accepting as true these
factual allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in the
Plaintiffs' favor, if the Defendant sold 10,000 tickets -- all to
members of the Nationwide Class or New York Subclass -- and is
liable for $50 in statutory damages for every ticket, that suggests
only $500,000 in controversy, far less than the $5 million required
for federal jurisdiction, the Court finds.
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VePwOl from PacerMonitor.com.
SLEEP NUMBER: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sleep Number Corporation, Case No. 0:24-cv-04652 (D.
Minn., Dec. 30, 2024) arises because the Defendant's website,
www.sleepnumber.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 well as 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; a
civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn.
Stat.; damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat.
The Plaintiff seeks relief including an injunction requiring
Defendant to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the
putative class; and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient
policies, practices, and procedures, the details of which are more
fully described below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains
accessible in the future.
The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are blind and
low-vision individuals and are reliant upon screen reader
technology to navigate the Internet.
The Defendant is a Minnesota Company and is headquartered at 1001
Third Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The Defendant has physical locations within and around the State of
Minnesota. The Company offers sleep products for sale including,
but not limited to, mattresses, mattress foundations, bedding,
pillows, furniture, sleep accessories, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Strain Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD STRAIN; and DAVID GARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-08885 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2024) seeks
to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as ramp agents.
Southwest Airlines Co. is a domestic airline that provides
primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services.
The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
Andrew Melzer, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP
MCKNIGHT, LLP
17 State Street, 37th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 402-5650
Email: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com
amelzer@sanfordheisler.com
SOUTHWEST COLORADO: Faces Howze Class Suit in Colorado Fed. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Colorado
Mental Health Center, Inc. The case is captioned as April Howze,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Southwest Colorado Mental Health Center, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-03094-GPG-STV (D. Colo., Nov. 5, 2024).
The nature of suit states Diversity-Non-Motor Vehicle.
The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Gordon P.
Gallagher.
Southwest Colorado is doing business as Axis Health System.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES PLLC
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 554-2377
Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
SPIRIT HALLOWEEN: Hill EPOA Lawsuit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned as JEFFREY HILL, Plaintiff, v. SPIRIT
HALLOWEEN SUPERSTORES LLC, et al. Defendants, Case No.
24-cv-01644-TSZ (W.D. Wash.) to King County Superior Court.
Plaintiff filed this putative class action in King County Superior
Court alleging that Defendant Spirit Halloween Superstores LLC
violated the pay transparency requirements of Washington's Equal
Pay and Opportunities Act, RCW 49.58, by failing to include wage
and salary information in its job postings. Spirit Halloween
removed the case to the District Court, asserting that it has
subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.
Plaintiff seeks remand, arguing that Spirit Halloween failed to
show that Plaintiff suffered an injury or harm sufficient to
establish Article III standing, that Spirit Halloween failed to
establish CAFA jurisdiction, and that the state law issues are best
adjudicated in state court.
Courts in this district have repeatedly found that plaintiffs who
alleged statutory violations of the EPOA similar to or the same as
those alleged by Plaintiff lacked Article III standing and, as a
result, granted remand.
The Court cannot ignore the weight of growing authority. The Court
agrees with Plaintiff that his allegations fail to establish a
concrete and particularized injury sufficient to give rise to
Article III standing. Without standing, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and need not address Plaintiff's additional
arguments in support of granting remand.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZA6zW8
SPORT SQUAD: Court Narrows Claims in Matus Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David S. Leibowitz of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part
the motion filed by Sport Squad d/b/a Joola to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended class action complaint in the case captioned as
GREG MATUS, Plaintiff, v. SPORT SQUAD d/b/a JOOLA, Defendant, CASE
NO. 0:24-cv-60954-LEIBOWITZ (S.D. Fla.).
Defendant Joola is a leader in the design, development,
manufacture, and distribution of pickleball paddles and
accessories. According to the Amended Complaint, Joola manufactured
tens of thousands of different paddles than the ones that were
approved by USAP and marketed them for $279.95 per paddle which
brandished the USAP Approved stamp.
On April 10, 2024, six days prior to the Subject Paddles going on
sale to consumers, USAP notified Joola that the Subject Paddles did
not comply with USAP regulations, and on May 16, 2024, USAP removed
the Subject Paddles from the approval list. Joola issued a
statement that this was due to an administrative error which caused
it to submit the wrong paddles for certification and admitted that
the Subject Paddles were never provided to USAP for certification
testing. Despite this, Joola sold the Subject Paddles with the USAP
Approved stamp. On May 30, 2024, USAP informed Joola that the
Subject Paddles failed its testing and would not be certified.
Plaintiff Matus purchased two of the Subject Paddles on April 17,
2024, but has stated that he would not have had he known they were
not approved by USAP. Matus claims Joola's actions were a deceptive
and fraudulent scheme and brings four causes of action against
Joola:
(1) Unjust Enrichment (Count I),
(2) Breach of Express Warranty (Count II),
(3) Breach of Implied Warranty (Count III), and
(4) a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (Count IV).
Matus attempts to bring this action on behalf of a class of injured
persons from 28 states.
The Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint on
five grounds:
(1) Matus's claims must be dismissed to the extent they are
based on alleged violations of non-Florida law because Matus lacks
standing to do so and fails to state a claim for violations of
non-Florida consumer protection statutes,
(2) Matus fails to state a claim for a violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
(3) Matus fails to state a claim for unjust enrichment,
(4) Matus fails to state a claim for breach of express warranty,
and
(5) Matus fails to state a claim for breach of implied warranty.
Non-Florida Law Claims
Joola's only argument on this issue is that Matus does not have
standing to assert claims under the laws of other states because
Matus resides in and purchased the Subject Paddles in Florida.
Joola also argues that Matus fails to state a claim for violation
of non-Florida consumer protection statutes.
Beyond Coleman Coleman v. Burger King Corp., No. 22-cv-20925, 2023
WL 5507730, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2023) (Altman, J.), Joola
points to no case in which a court dismissed a count similar to
Count IV here. Joola's motion is denied on this ground, the Court
holds.
Joola may very well be correct that Matus cannot bring claims based
on other states' laws for standing and failure to state a claim
purposes, but this argument is premature at this juncture, when
class certification is not before this Court.
FDUTPA Violation
The Court finds Matus properly pleads a deceptive act because,
taking the complaint as true, Joola marketed and sold the Subject
Paddles that bore the USAP stamp of approval even though the
Subject Paddles were never submitted to USAP for testing. A stamp
from USAP on the Subject Paddles implies to the consumer that USAP
certified the paddles, even though USAP had never certified the
Subject Paddles. Marketing and selling the Subject Paddles as
certified when they were not certified is likely to cause injury to
a consumer who seeks to purchase paddles that USAP certified.
Certainly, improperly labeling a product as certified by USAP
causes a consumer who wants to purchase a USAP certified paddle to
purchase a paddle they otherwise would not have purchased. Thus,
the causation and actual damages prongs are satisfied as well.
Based on the allegations in Matus's complaint, he successfully
states a claim for a FDUTPA violation and Count IV survives.
Unjust Enrichment Claim
Joola argues that the claim is duplicative of the FDUTPA claim and
should be dismissed. This Court disagrees. Matus's unjust
enrichment claim (Count I) survives.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranties
Joola first argues that both Matus's claims for breach of express
and implied warranties must fail because Matus did not provide
Joola with notice before the filing of this instant lawsuit of the
alleged breach, rather it provided notice of the breach before the
filing of the operative Amended Complaint. The timing to the notice
provided to Joola (after the filing of the lawsuit but before the
filing of the Amended Complaint) is undisputed.
Because the Court finds that Matus cannot bring claims of breach of
express and implied warranty for failure to notify defendant within
a reasonable time after discovery of the breach, it need not
address Joola's substantive argument that Matus's allegations fail
to state claims of breach of express or implied warranty.
Accordingly, Matus's claims of breach of express warranty (Count
II) and implied warranty (Count III) fail as a matter of law and
must be dismissed with prejudice.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GBnXIi from PacerMonitor.com.
STARBUCKS CORP: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Lubin Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as RAPHYR LUBIN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, No. 21-11215 (11th
Cir.), Judges Barbara Lagoa, Andrew L. Brasher and Gerald Bard
Tjoflat of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed the order of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida denying Starbucks's motion to compel
arbitration of Lubin's claim.
Ariel Torres, a former Starbucks employee, and Raphyr Lubin, the
husband of another former Starbucks employee, brought a putative
class action against Starbucks in federal district court. Torres
and Lubin alleged that Starbucks sent them deficient health
insurance notices under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act.
Starbucks responded by moving to compel arbitration, citing
employment agreements that Torres and Lubin's wife signed with
Starbucks. Torres consented to arbitration, but Lubin opposed
Starbucks's motion. Although Lubin's wife signed the employment
agreement, Lubin was not a party to the agreement. Unlike Torres,
Lubin never worked for Starbucks. Instead, Lubin obtained coverage
under Starbucks's Welfare Benefits Plan because his wife worked for
Starbucks, and she elected to cover Lubin as her spouse. Starbucks
terminated Lubin's wife in February 2019, which was a "qualifying
event" that triggered Lubin's right to a COBRA notice. This appeal
requires the Ninth Circuit to determine whether Lubin must
arbitrate his claims in light of his wife's employment agreement.
Starbucks argues that the arbitration agreement's delegation clause
grants exclusive jurisdiction to an arbitrator to determine whether
Lubin must arbitrate. Lubin responds, however, that the agreement's
exclusion clause makes the application of the delegation clause
neither "clear" nor "unmistakable." The Circuit Judges agree with
Lubin. The language of the arbitration agreement is ambiguous
because the delegation clause conflicts with the exclusion clause.
The delegation clause provides the arbitrator with authority to
resolve disputes about the applicability of the arbitration
agreement. But the exclusion clause expressly states that actions
to enforce the agreement or compel arbitration are excluded from
arbitration.
After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying
Starbucks's motion to compel arbitration of Lubin's claim.
The Circuit Judges conclude that the district court correctly
denied Starbucks's motion to compel arbitration of Lubin's claim.
Because Lubin was not a party to the arbitration agreement, he
cannot be compelled to arbitrate absent another principle of law or
equity. No such principle applies.
A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6YFtbP
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Nguyen Appeals Final Judgment to 9th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DUY NGUYEN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit
entitled Duy Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stephens Institute, Inc., doing
business as Academy of Art University, Defendant, Case No.
4:20-cv-04195-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District
of California.
This class action complaint was brought to seek refunds on behalf
of those who paid tuition and fees for the Spring 2020 semester at
the Academy of Art University. The Plaintiff contends that he and
Class Members are entitled to a pro-rata refund of the tuition and
fees they paid to the Defendant for in-person educational services,
as well as other marketed collegiate experiences and services that
were not provided following its campus closure and cancellation of
all in-person and on-campus educational services and to transition
to exclusively online instruction in response to the COVID-19
epidemic.
On Mar. 6, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
which Judge Jeffrey S. White denied on Oct. 30, 2023. The Court
held that the only remaining damages the Plaintiff can recover, the
course fees for individual classes, are so varied as to fail the
predominance requirement.
On Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a joint stipulation of
dismissal with prejudice. On the same day, Judge White entered
final judgment on the stipulation request.
The appellate case is captioned Nguyen v. Stephens Institute, Inc.,
Case No. 24-7738, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on December 24, 2024.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 30,
2024;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 3, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 4, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant DUY NGUYEN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
1 Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
Defendant-Appellee STEPHENS INSTITUTE, INC., doing business as
Academy of Art University, is represented by:
Steven Gombos, Esq.
Gerald Matthew Ritzert, Esq.
Jacob Shorter, Esq.
GOMBOS LEYTON, PC
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 400
Fairfax, VA 22030
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval of
the class action settlement in the case captioned as MARK WINTER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING, INC., GREGORY A. BEARD,
RICARDO R. A. LARROUDE, WILLIAM B. SPENCE, B. RILEY SECURITIES,
INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO.
SECURITIES, LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., COMPASS POINT RESEARCH &
TRADING, LLC, and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03088-RA (S.D.N.Y.).
On November 6, 2024 Class Representative Allegheny County Employees
Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other members of the
Settlement Class, on the one hand, and Stronghold Digital Mining,
Inc., Gregory A. Beard, William B. Spence, B. Riley Securities,
Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
Securities, LLC, D.A. Davidson & Co., Compass Point Research &
Trading, LLC, and Northland Securities, Inc., and Ricardo R. A.
Larroude, on the other, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated Nov. 6, 2024 in the litigation, which is subject
to review under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
which, together with the exhibits thereto, sets forth the terms and
conditions of the proposed settlement of the Action and the claims
alleged in the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, filed on Oct. 18, 2022, on the merits and
with prejudice.
The Court preliminarily approves the proposed Settlement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e)(2).
Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class
of: all persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Stronghold Class A common stock on or before Dec. 20,
2021, pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the Class A common stock initial public offering in
October 2021, and were damaged thereby.
The Court finds and preliminarily concludes that the prerequisites
of class action certification under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied for the
Settlement Class defined herein and for the purposes of the
Settlement only, in that:
(a) the members of the Settlement Class are so numerous that
joinder of all Settlement Class Members is impracticable;
(b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Settlement
Class Members;
(c) the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the Settlement
Class's claims;
(d) Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately
represented and protected the interests of the Settlement Class;
(e) the questions of law and fact common to Settlement Class
Members predominate over any individual questions; and
(f) a class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.
Plaintiff is preliminarily certified as Class Representative for
the Settlement Class under Rule 23. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is
preliminarily appointed Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
A hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is scheduled to be held before the Court on April 11,
2025 at 3:00 p.m. for the following purposes:
(a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, and should be approved by the Court;
(b) to determine whether the proposed Final Judgment as provided
under the Stipulation should be entered, and to determine whether
the release by the Settlement Class of the Released Plaintiff's
Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the
Released Defendant Parties;
c) to determine, for purposes of the Settlement only, whether
the Settlement Class should be finally certified; whether Plaintiff
should be finally certified as Class Representative for the
Settlement Class; and whether Rosen Law should be finally appointed
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class;
(d) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for the
proceeds of the Settlement is fair and reasonable and should be
approved by the Court;
(e) to consider Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses (which may include an
application for an award to Plaintiff for reimbursement of its
reasonable costs and expenses directly related to its
representation of the Settlement Class, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995; and
(f) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.
The Court adopts the schedule proposed in Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval as follows:
a. The Notice Date shall be January 8, 2025.
b. The Summary Notice shall be published no later than
January 22, 2025.
c. Motions in support of final approval of the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, and Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and expenses shall be filed no later than March 7, 2025.
d. Requests for exclusion must be received no later than
March 21, 2025.
e. Objections and notices of intent to appear must be received
no later than March 21, 2025.
f. Reply papers, if any, shall be filed no later than
April 4, 2025.
g. Claim Forms must be submitted no later than April 4, 2025.
h. The Settlement Hearing will be held on April 11, 2025 at 3:00
p.m.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RbpNrw from PacerMonitor.com.
STUBHUB INC: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Kern, et al. Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted StubHub, Inc.'s motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned as LOWELL KERN, JOSEPH
BALL, MICHELLE SHAPIRO, and STEVE HERMIDA individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against-
STUBHUB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24 Civ. 871 (AT) (S.D.N.Y.).
This action is stayed pending arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims.
Plaintiffs, Lowell Kern, Joseph Ball, Michelle Shapiro, and Steve
Hermida, bring this putative class action against Defendant,
StubHub, Inc., alleging that StubHub violated New York Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07 and unjustly enriched itself by
failing to properly disclose fees associated with tickets sold on
its platform. StubHub now moves to compel arbitration under the
Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., arguing that the
arbitration agreement in the StubHub Global User Agreement governs
this action.
StubHub is an online platform for the resale of event tickets. The
Plaintiffs each purchased a ticket from StubHub's website or mobile
application and did not opt out of the arbitration agreement.
The Court finds StubHub's website and mobile application provide
the Plaintiffs reasonably conspicuous notice of the arbitration
agreement.
Having determined that the textual notice here is sufficiently
conspicuous, the Court turns to whether the Plaintiffs took some
action that unambiguously manifested their assent to the
arbitration agreement. StubHub's textual notice explicitly advised
Plaintiffs that, by clicking the "Buy Now" button, the Plaintiffs
accepted StubHub's terms and conditions. Accordingly, by clicking
the "Buy Now" button, the Plaintiffs unambiguously manifested their
assent to the arbitration agreement and effectuated a valid
arbitration agreement between themselves and StubHub, the Court
finds.
Because there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties,
the Court considers whether the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the
scope of the agreement. The Plaintiffs do not dispute that their
claims against StubHub fall within the scope of the arbitration
agreement. Indeed, the arbitration clause, which covers "any and
all disputes or claims" arising out of the Plaintiffs' use of or
access to StubHub's services, or any tickets sold or purchased
through StubHub, "is the paradigm of a broad clause," giving rise
to a presumption of arbitrability. The Plaintiffs' claims that
StubHub charges purchasers without properly disclosing fees and
unjustly enriches itself as a result arise out of the Plaintiffs'
use of StubHub's services. Their claims thus fall within the scope
of the arbitration agreement, according to the Court.
Because there is a valid arbitration agreement between the parties
and the Plaintiffs' claims fall within the scope of that agreement,
the matter is one for arbitration, the Court concludes.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mR7dXL from PacerMonitor.com.
SUMMIT PATHOLOGY: Faces Castle Class Suit in D. Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Summit Pathology, et
al. The case is captioned as CHRISTIAN CASTLE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SUMMIT PATHOLOGY, et
al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03036-GPG-MEH (D. Colo., October 30, 2024).
The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the
Defendants.
Summit Pathology is a pathology service provider in Loveland,
Colorado. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP PC
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Kelly A. Hyman, Esq.
THE HYMAN LAW FIRM P.A.
515 North Flagler Drive, Suite P-300
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 538-9050
Email: kellyhyman@thehymanlawfirm.com
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Millunchick Settlement Plan of Allocation OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York approved the proposed
plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund in the case captioned
as MATTHEW MILLUNCHICK and MIKE MARGENT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against- SUNLIGHT
FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a/ SPARTAN ACQUISITION CORP. II,
MATTHEW POTERE, BARRY EDINBURG, RODNEY YODER, GEOFFREY STRONG,
JAMES CROSSEN, OLIVIA WASSENAAR, WILSON HANDLER, CHRISTINE HOMMES,
JOSEPH ROMEO, and SPARTAN ACQUISITION SPONSOR II LLC, Defendants,
Case No.: 1:22-cv-10658-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action,
Plaintiffs, all Settlement Class Members and the Defendants.
On Dec. 10, 2024, a hearing was held before the Court to determine,
among other things, whether the Plan of Allocation should be
approved.
The Court finds the Plan of Allocation is in all respects fair and
reasonable.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jqscab from PacerMonitor.com.
SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL: Settlement in Millunchick Suit Finally Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval
of the class action settlement in the case captioned as MATTHEW
MILLUNCHICK and MIKE MARGENT, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against- SUNLIGHT FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS, INC. f/k/a/ SPARTAN ACQUISITION CORP. II, MATTHEW POTERE,
BARRY EDINBURG, RODNEY YODER, GEOFFREY STRONG, JAMES CROSSEN,
OLIVIA WASSENAAR, WILSON HANDLER, CHRISTINE HOMMES, JOSEPH ROMEO,
and SPARTAN ACQUISITION SPONSOR II LLC, Defendants, Case No.:
1:22-cv-10658-AKH (S.D.N.Y.).
On Dec. 10 2024, a hearing was held before this Court to determine
whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement
dated Aug. 8, 2024, are fair, reasonable and adequate for the
settlement of all claims asserted by the Settlement Class against
Defendants.
The Parties submitted a revised Stipulation of Settlement, dated
Dec. 12, 2024 pursuant to the Court's order at the Dec. 10, 2024
hearing.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action,
Plaintiffs, ail Settlement Class Members, and Defendants.
The Court finally certifies this action as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons and
entities who: (a) purchased the publicly traded common stock of
Sunlight between Jan. 25, 2021 and Sept. 28, 2022, both dates
inclusive, and/or (b) beneficially owned and/or held the common
stock of Spartan Acquisition Corp. II as of June 1, 2021 and were
eligible to vote at Spartan's July 8, 2021 special meeting.
Plaintiffs are certified as the class representatives on behalf of
the Settlement Class and Lead Counsel is appointed as Class Counsel
for the Settlement Class under Rule 23.
The Court finds that the Stipulation and Settlement are, in all
respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class and each of the Settlement Class Members.
It further finds the Settlement is the result of arm's-length
negotiations between experienced counsel representing the interests
of Plaintiffs, Settlement Class Members, and Defendants.
Accordingly, the Settlement embodied in the Stipulation is finally
approved in all respects, and must be consummated in accordance
with its terms and provisions.
The Complaint is dismissed with prejudice as to Defendants.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nkkYGr from PacerMonitor.com.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Heredia Class Action Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
as Audrey Heredia as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Carlos
Heredia;
Amy Fearn as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Edith Zack; and
Elise Ganz, as successor-in-interest to the Estate of Helen Ganz;
on their own behalves and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Sunrise Senior Living, LLC; Sunrise Senior Living
Management, Inc.; and Does 2 - 100, Defendants (C.D. Calif.). The
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Service Awards is
also granted.
The Court has confirmed certification of the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes. The Settlement Class is defined as all
persons who resided at one of the Sunrise California Communities at
any time during the Settlement Class Period, who contracted with
and paid money to Sunrise pursuant to a residency agreement, and
whose claims are not subject to arbitration because: (1) neither
the Resident nor Resident's Responsible Party (as defined in the
residency agreement) agreed to or accepted an arbitration provision
in writing; or (2) if arbitration was initially accepted, the
Resident or Resident's Responsible Party provided written notice of
withdrawal within the 30-day period prescribed in the residency
agreement.
The Sunrise California Communities are Sunrise at Alta Loma,
Sunrise at Belmont, Sunrise at Beverly Hills, Sunrise at Bonita,
Sunrise at Burlingame, Sunrise at Canyon Crest, Sunrise at
Carmichael, Sunrise at Claremont, Sunrise of Cupertino, Sunrise at
Danville, Sunrise at Fair Oaks , Sunrise at Fresno, Sunrise at
Fullerton, Sunrise at Hermosa Beach, Sunrise at Huntington Beach,
Sunrise at La Costa, Sunrise at La Jolla, Sunrise at La Palma,
Sunrise at Mission Viejo, Sunrise at Monterey, Sunrise at Oakland
Hills, Sunrise of Orange, Sunrise at Palo Alto, Sunrise at Palos
Verdes, Sunrise at Petaluma, Sunrise at Playa Vista, Sunrise at
Pleasanton, Sunrise at Rocklin, Sunrise at Sacramento, Sunrise at
Sabre Springs, Sunrise at San Marino, Sunrise at San Mateo, Sunrise
at Santa Monica, Sunrise of San Rafael, Sunrise at Seal Beach,
Sunrise at Sterling Canyon, Sunrise at Studio City, Sunrise at
Sunnyvale, Sunrise at Tustin, Sunrise at Walnut Creek, Sunrise at
West Hills, Sunrise at Westlake Village, Sunrise at Wood Ranch,
Sunrise at Woodland Hills, and Sunrise at Yorba Linda.
The Settlement Class Period runs from June 27, 2013 through and
including three (3) business days prior to the Class Notice Date.
As the Class Notice Date is August 27, 2024, the Settlement Class
Period terminates on August 22, 2024; provided that, the Settlement
Class Period commences on the following dates for residents of
these Communities: Sunrise of San Rafael (September 29, 2016),
Sunrise of Cupertino (October 1, 2023), and Sunrise of Orange
(April 27, 2023).
Named Plaintiffs Amy Fearn and Elise Ganz are adequate and typical
Class Representatives. The following Plaintiffs' Counsel have been
approved to serve as Class Counsel: Stebner, Gertler & Guadagni;
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP; Dentons US LLP; Marks,
Balette, Giessel & Young, PLLC; Janssen Malloy LLP; Law Offices of
Michael D. Thamer; and Trails Law Group. CPT Group, Inc. has been
approved as the Settlement Administrator.
The Court finds that the Settlement Class Notice is reasonable,
constitutes due, adequate and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled to receive notice, and meets the requirements of due
process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B).
The approved Settlement Administrator shall carry out settlement
administration in accordance with the terms of the Settlement
Stipulation.
A copy of the Court's Final Judgment is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHU5qI
TALIS BIOMEDICAL: $32.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re Talis Biomedical Corporation Securities Litigation
Case No. 22-cv-00105-SI
SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS SETTLEMENT
To: All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock issued by Talis pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's February 11, 2021 initial public offering between
February 11, 2021 and August 11, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby.1
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Court") that a
hearing will be held on March 14, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Susan Illston, at the Phillip Burton Federal Building &
United States Courthouse, United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue San
Francisco, CA 94102, or at such other location or via telephonic or
video appearance as determined by the Court, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") for the sum of
$32,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement") should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Settlement
Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement; (3)
whether, thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated September 30, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"); (4) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved;
and (5) the reasonableness of the application for payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation together with the interest earned thereon (and any
payment to the Lead Plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in connection with his representation
of the Settlement Class) (the "Fee and Expense Application"). The
Court may change the date of this hearing, or hold it remotely,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the
hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.
The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of a
Class of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock issued by Talis pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's February 11, 2021 initial public offering between
February 11, 2021 and August 11, 2021, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby, except for certain persons or entities excluded from the
Settlement Class, as defined in the full Long-Form Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Long-Form
Notice"), which is available as described below. If the Settlement
is approved, it will resolve all claims in the Litigation.
A detailed description of the Litigation, including important
information about your rights and options, is in the detailed
Long-Form Notice available at www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com or
by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Talis Biomedical
Corporation Securities Litigation c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box
173064 Milwaukee, WI 53217, or (877) 331-0411.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of
Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim") online at
www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com or by mail postmarked no later
than March 13, 2025. Failure to timely submit a Proof of Claim
will subject your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you
from receiving any payment from the Settlement.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion electronically submitted or
postmarked by February 21, 2025, in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Long-Form Notice referred to above. All Members of
the Settlement Class who do not timely and validly request
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, the Fee and Expense Application,
and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation should be sent only to the
Court and must be mailed or delivered to the Clerk of Court at the
address below such that it is received no later than February 21,
2025:
Class Action Clerk
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California
United States Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36060
San Francisco, CA 94102
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact counsel for Lead Plaintiff at the address listed above,
email talissettlement@bfalaw.com, call (888) 879-9418, or go to the
following website: www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
DATED: NOVEMBER 22, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Judge Susan Illston
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California
Any capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined herein shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Stipulation of Settlement
dated September 30, 2024 (the "Stipulation"), which is available on
the website established for the Settlement at
www.TalisSecuritiesLitigation.com.
TELEXFREE INC: Securities Class Cert Responses Extended to Jan. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Telexfree Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 22, 2014), the Hon.
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order entered allowing motion
for extension of time to file response / reply as to motion to deny
class certification:
-- Responses due by: Jan. 9, 2025
The nature of suit states Securities Fraud.
Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a
multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone
service provider.[CC]
TESLA INC: Appeal Filed in Tornetta Class Suit in Del. Sup.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARK Investment Management LLC, David Israel and Kurt Panouses filed
an appeal from the December 2, 2024 Letter Decision, the December
2, 2024 Fee Opinion, the December 13, 2024 Letter Decision, and the
December 13, 2024 Order and Final Judgment decided by the Honorable
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick, in case number 2018-0408-KSJM in the
Court of Chancery.
The appeal was filed on Dec. 30, 2024 before the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware and captioned as RICHARD J. TORNETTA,
derivatively on behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders
of TESLA, INC., Plaintiff v. ELON MUSK; ROBYN M. DENHOLM; ANTONIO
J. GRACIAS; JAMES MURDOCH; LINDA JOHNSON RICE; BRAD W. BUSS; and
IRA EHRENPREIS; and TESLA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5342024.
Tesla Inc. operates as a multinational automotive and clean energy
company. The Company designs and manufactures electric vehicles,
battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and
solar roof tiles, and related products and services. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant RICHARD J. TORNETTA, derivatively on behalf of
all other similarly situated stockholders of TESLA, INC., is
represented by:
David S. Eagle, Esq.
Sally E. Veghte, Esq.
KLEHR HARRISON
HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
919 Market Street, Suite 1000
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 552-5508
Email: deagle@klehr.com
sveghte@klehr.com
TRIVEST: Motions to Compel in Hall, et al. Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as AARON HALL, KATHERINE GLOD, and JEFFREY
BINDER, Plaintiffs, v. TRIVEST PARTNERS L.P., TGIF POWER HOME
INVESTOR, LLC, and WILLIAM JAYSON WALLER, Defendants, Case No.
22-12743 (E.D. Mich.), Magistrate Judge Curtis Ivy, Jr. of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
granted in part plaintiffs' motions to compel against Waller and
the remaining Trivest defendants.
Motion Compel against Waller
The Court ordered Waller to supplement responses to the Plaintiffs'
interrogatories by Oct. 23, 2024. He initially refused to respond
to 19 of 24 interrogatories because he could not access documents
to refresh his memory. The Court required him to supplement
responses with what he could recall; he could supplement again
later after reviewing documents. The Court also rejected his
boilerplate objections but allowed him to withhold documents based
on privilege, with an appropriate privilege log. During a status
conference, Waller's request to stay that Order pending resolution
of the motions to compel arbitration was denied. Waller
supplemented his responses. The Plaintiffs contend that Waller's
supplemental responses are insufficient.
Waller gave three objections:
(1) the interrogatory seeks information about customers other
than the Plaintiffs,
(2) it seeks information as to confidential arbitrations, and
(3) the information is accessible to the Plaintiffs.
Waller argues that discovery about other customers is inappropriate
in the pre-class certification phase. Because the discovery request
is inappropriate, he insists that he did not waive the objection,
though it was raised for the first time in the supplemental
response. Waller's objections about class discovery and information
about other customers, and that arbitration is confidential so he
cannot disclose any such
proceedings are raised for the first time in the supplemental
response.
The Court finds that Waller waived objections not raised in his
initial responses. Waller had the opportunity to challenge the
appropriateness of the interrogatories when he first responded to
them. Then, Waller could have challenged the interrogatories in
response to the first motion to compel. But Waller said nothing
about providing information that might concern other customers or
arguing that he could not disclose the existence of arbitrations
with other customers. He offered no reason why he could not have
raised this objection sooner.
The motion to compel is granted. Given this conclusion, the Court
will not address Waller's class discovery arguments or the
Plaintiffs' attorney conflicts argument.
Waller must respond to Interrogatory 23, without withholding
information on an objection other than privilege because all other
objections have been waived or disregarded as boilerplate. Waller
must also supplement responses to any other interrogatory to which
he raised either of these new objections. Supplemental responses
must be complete by January 3, 2025.
Motion to Compel Against Trivest Defendants
This motion is about around 1,800 documents that Trivest Defendants
withheld or redacted and about production of text messages.
Defendants assert attorney-client and attorney work-product
privilege in withholding the 1,800 documents. Defendants produced
an accompanying privilege log. The Plaintiffs argue that the
privilege log was insufficient because it did not describe the
bases for withholding or redacting each document. They seek
production of all the challenged documents, without redaction.
The motion to compel is granted in part to the extent that
privilege assertions are improper and by providing a deadline by
which the Defendants must produce text messages.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zsv15P from PacerMonitor.com.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Brown Suit Alleges Deceptive Delivery Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
TODD BROWN, RYAN VARZANDEH, and VAUGHN ROGERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-09505-KAW (N.D. Cal., Dec. 30, 2024)
contends that Uber One Members who attempt to utilize the "$0
Delivery Fee" benefit are charged numerous hidden delivery fees in
direct contradiction to its affirmative representations.
The Defendant owns and operates Uber Eats, a food delivery service
that allows consumers to place digital delivery orders from local
restaurants through a mobile app (the "Uber Eats App").
Uber Eats primarily functions as a third-party delivery service,
utilizing a network of independent contractors to deliver food
orders to consumers for a fee. Uber Eats also offers a subscription
service called "Uber One," where its members receive discounts in
exchange for a monthly subscription fee.
The most promoted benefit for Uber One Members is "$0 Delivery Fee"
on eligible Uber Eats orders. Reasonable consumers understand this
offer to mean that Uber Eats will not charge Members a fee for the
delivery of their food order. These fees are actively concealed and
deceptively labeled such that they are unlikely to be discovered by
reasonable consumers prior to their purchase, says the suit.
As a result of this misconduct, millions of Uber One Members have
paid deceptively charged delivery fees, despite their reasonable
belief that they would receive free delivery services.
Additionally, millions of Uber One Members have paid subscription
fees in exchange for benefits that Defendant never intended to
provide. Uber's misconduct has caused Plaintiffs and putative Class
Members to suffer injury in fact, including economic damages, the
suit added.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs bring this suit to halt Uber's unfair
and deceptive trade practices.
The Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and other equitable
remedies for themselves and the proposed classes.
The Uber Eats platform was first launched in 2015, providing food
delivery to consumers via its Uber Eats App.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alex R. Straus, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
280 S. Beverly Drive, PH Suite
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Facsimile: (615) 921-6501
E-mail: astraus@milberg.com
UNITED STATES: Fails to Determine FOIA Requests, Mora Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian SANCHEZ MORA, Siobhan WALDRON, Carlos Moctezuma GARCIA,
Brenda CANUDAS TIRADO, and Ali AINAB v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER
PROTECTION; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. e
1:24-cv-03136-BAH (N.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2024) is a class action
alleging that CBP has failed to make a determination on each of the
Plaintiffs' requests within the 20 or, at most, 30 business days
mandated by Freedom of Information Act.
According to the complaint, Plaintiffs Sanchez Mora and García
each have had requests pending for nearly a year and a half, since
October and December 2022, respectively. CBP allegedly engages in a
nationwide pattern and practice of failing to make a determination
on individual FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe.
The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of similarly situated FOIA
requesters who must wait for prolonged periods -- generally over
six months and sometimes longer than one year -- for determinations
on their FOIA requests.
The Plaintiffs are three immigration attorneys (Attorney
Plaintiffs) and two individuals (Individual Plaintiffs) who filed
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with Defendant U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component agency of
Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trina Realmuto, Esq.
Mary Kenney, Esq.
Aidan Langston, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE
10 Griggs Terrace
Brookline, MA, 02446
Telephone: (617) 819-4447
E-mail: trina@immigrationlitigation.org
mary@immigrationlitigation.org
aidan@immigrationlitigation.org
- and -
Marc Van Der Hout, Esq.
Johnny Sinodis, Esq.
VAN DER HOUT LLP
360 Post St., Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-3000
E-mail: ndca@vblaw.com
- and -
Matt Adams, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
VIVENDI TICKETING: Settlement Agreement Obtains Final Court Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California granted final approval of the
settlement agreement in In re: Vivendi Ticketing US LLC, d/b/a
Vivendi Data Security Incident, Lead Case No.
2:23-cv-07498-MWF(DFMx)(C.D. Calif.).
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Mandi Peterson, Scott Fitzgerald,
Zachary Richmond, Tom Loughead, Mason Verderame, Katie Jezierny,
Rian Bodner, Christopher Aragon, and Candice Zinner's Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Service Awards.
On June 12, 2024, the Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval to the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release
between Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Settlement
Class, and Defendant Vivendi Ticketing US LLC, d/b/a See Tickets.
On December 16, 2024, the Court held a Final Approval Hearing to
determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and whether judgment should be entered dismissing the
Action with prejudice. The Court finds good cause to grant the
Motions.
The Court finds the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of Settlement Class Members. The
Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's-length, in good faith
and without collusion, by capable and experienced counsel with the
assistance of an experienced third-party neutral, with full
knowledge of the facts, the law, and the risks inherent in
litigating the Action, and with the active involvement of the
Parties. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement confers substantial
benefits on the Settlement Class Members, is not contrary to the
public interest, and will provide the Parties with repose from
litigation. The Parties faced significant risks, expenses, and/or
uncertainty from continued litigation of this matter, which further
supports the Court's conclusion that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement
Class Members.
No objections to the settlement were submitted by Settlement Class
Members. Therefore, all Settlement Class Members are deemed to have
waived any objections, including but not limited to, by appeal,
collateral attack, or otherwise.
The Court finds that the lack of objections and requests for
exclusions weighs in favor of finding that the proposed settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and provides the Settlement
Class Members with substantial recovery in light with, or
exceeding, those of comparable data breach settlements that have
been approved.
Solely for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final
Judgment and Order, the Court certifies the following Settlement
Class and California Settlement Subclass:
Settlement Class – All individuals in the United States
whose information was accessed in the Data Security
Incident and who received notice of the Data Security
Incident from See Tickets.
California Settlement Subclass – All individuals
residing in California as of the Notice Date whose
information was accessed in the Data Security Incident
and who received notice of the Data Security Incident
from See Tickets.
The Court grants final approval of the appointment of
Representative Plaintiffs Mandi Peterson, Scott Fitzgerald, Zachary
Richmond, Tom Loughead, Mason Verderame, Katie Jezierny, Rian
Bodner, Christopher Aragon, and Candice Zinner as Class
Representatives of the Settlement Class and concludes that they
have fairly and adequately represented the Settlement Class and
shall continue to do so
The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Mason Barney
and Tyler Bean, Siri & Glimstad, LLP, Jason Rathod and Nicholas
Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod, LLP and Kenneth Grunfeld,
Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. as Class Counsel. Class Counsel has fairly
and adequately represented the Settlement Class and shall continue
to do so.
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards
Class Counsel is awarded attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses in the amount of $812,500. The Court finds this
amount to be fair and reasonable. Payment shall be made pursuant to
the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court awards Service Awards of $2,500 to each Representative
Plaintiff. The Court finds these amounts are justified by their
service to the Settlement Class. Payment shall be made from the
Settlement Fund pursuant to the procedures in the Settlement
Agreement.
A copy of the Court's Judgment is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8pkmgG
VOBEV LLC: Committee Gets OK to Tap Alvarez as Financial Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The official committee of unsecured creditors of Vobev, LLC
received approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Utah to employ Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as its
financial advisor.
The firm will render these services:
(a) assist in the assessment and monitoring of cash flow
budgets, liquidity and operating results;
(b) assist in the review of Court disclosures, including the
Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, the Statements of Financial
Affairs, Monthly Operating Reports, and Periodic Reports;
(c) assist in the review of the Debtor's cost/benefit
evaluations with respect to the assumption or rejection of
executory contracts and/or unexpired leases;
(d) assist in the analysis of any assets and liabilities and
any proposed transactions for which Court approval is sought;
(e) attend meetings with the Debtor, the Debtor's lenders and
creditors, the Committee and any other official committees
organized in these chapter 11 cases, the U.S. Trustee, other
parties in interest, and professionals hired by the same, as
requested;
(f) assist in the review of any tax issues;
(g) assist in the investigation and pursuit of causes of
actions;
(h) assist in the review of the sales or dispositions of the
Debtor's assets;
(i) assist in the review and/or preparation of information and
analysis necessary for the confirmation of a plan in these chapter
11 cases; and
(j) render such other general business consulting or such
other assistance as the Committee or its counsel may deem
necessary, consistent with the role of a financial advisor and not
duplicative of services provided by other professionals in these
chapter 11 cases.
The firm will be paid at these hourly rates:
Managing Directors $1,100 to 1,575
Directors $850 to $1,100
Associates $625 to $825
Analysts $450 to $600
A&M will seek reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with this engagement.
Mark Greenberg, a partner at Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC,
disclosed in a court filing that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
The firm can be reached at:
Mark Greenberg
Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC
600 Madison Avenue,8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Tel: (917) 841-8334
Email: mgreenberg@alvarezandmarsal.com
About Vobev LLC
Vobev LLC, a Salt Lake City-based beverage can manufacturer, sought
relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Utah
Case No. 24-26346) on December 9, 2024. In its petition, the
Debtor
disclosed between $500 million and $1 billion in both assets and
liabilities.
Honorable Bankruptcy Judge Joel T. Marker handles the case.
The Debtor tapped Ray Quinney & Nebeker PC as counsel, Houlihan
Lokey Capital, Inc. as investment banker, and FTI Consulting, Inc.
as financial advisor. Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC is the
Debtor's claims and noticing agent.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Court Nixes Ruiz Breach of Contract Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the motion filed by
Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and VW Credit, Inc. to
dismiss the plaintiff's third amended complaint in the case
captioned as SONIA RUIZ, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-03624-SK (N.D. Calif.).
On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff Sonia Ruiz commenced this action in
Contra Costa Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to this
Court on June 14, 2024. Since then, this Court has twice dismissed
Plaintiff's claims with leave to amend. In its most recent order of
dismissal, the Court granted leave to amend Plaintiff's two claims
for breach of contract but dismissed all of Plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.
Plaintiff's first claim for breach of contract brought against VW
Credit, Inc. arises out of VC's alleged demand for overpayment of a
loan balance. In summary, Plaintiff's vehicle, which was insured by
VC, was declared a total loss after an accident. The vehicle had a
loan balance of $2,317.73, but VC required payment of $10,613.62.
In the earlier Order, the Court dismissed this claim because
Plaintiff did not allege the terms or legal effect of the agreement
allegedly breached.
The Third Amended Complaint alleges that VC refunded the overcharge
in two separate payments ($4,718.04 on June 28, 2023 and $3,577.85
on May 21, 2024). The Plaintiff contends that VC breached its
contract by paying the refund in an untimely manner, by failing to
explain the refund payments, and by refusing to pay attorney's fees
and court costs.
Plaintiff's second claim for breach of contract against Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. arises from alleged defects in two
Volkswagen Beetles allegedly belonging to Plaintiff. Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that the Settlement Agreement between VGA and
"class members" requires VGA to provide free refills of AdBlue
(also known as diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF) and to disclose
defects relating to certain vehicles' sunroofs and heating
systems.
The Third Amended Complaint alleges that VGA breached terms of the
Settlement Agreement that required VGA to provide an Approved
Emissions Modification free of charge and disclose any and all
reasonably predictable changes resulting from the Approved
Emissions Modification, including but not limited to changes to
reliability, durability, fuel economy, noise vibration, vehicle
performance, drivability and any other vehicle attributes that may
reasonably be important to vehicle owners.
After Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint re-alleging the
two breach of contract claims, Defendant filed a third motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss.
Breach of Contract Claim Against VC
Plaintiff claims that VC breached section 2(h) of the Loan
Agreement. Because section 2(h) does not contain any requirements
for specific deadlines for refund or for disclosure of payments,
Plaintiff has not pled a viable claim for breach of contract, the
Court finds. Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled to recover
attorney's fees and court costs because her lawsuit allegedly
compelled VC to refund the overpayment. According to the Court,
Plaintiff cannot recover for breach of contract, including fees and
costs, if she cannot allege a plausible breach at the motion to
dismiss stage. The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against VC.
Breach of Contract Claim Against VGA
Plaintiff claims that VGA breached its Settlement Agreement with
"class members" of the "Dieselgate" litigation by failing to
provide free AdBlue refills and failing to disclose sunroof and
heater system defects.
Plaintiff does not allege that she herself is a repurchaser of an
eligible vehicle. She does not allege that the vehicle was ever
held in her name during the applicable period. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is not entitled to participate in the settlement program,
the Court concludes.
The Court emphasizes that even if Plaintiff were a class member,
she has not sufficiently alleged a breach of the Settlement
Agreement. Plaintiff claims that the Settlement Agreement's promise
to provide an option for class members to have their emissions
systems modified free of charge obliged VGA to pay for AdBlue
refills, which allegedly became more frequent as a result of the
modification. However, a promise to pay for an "emissions system,",
is not the same as a promise to pay for refills of fluid. In sum,
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint does not state any plausible
breach, the Court finds.
Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint claims, for the first time,
that VGA violated the Consent Decree by failing to disclose defects
in the sunroof and heater system. Plaintiff does not point to any
language in the Consent Decree that clearly expresses an intent for
Plaintiff to be an intended beneficiary. As such, Plaintiff cannot
sue to enforce the Consent Decree, according to the Court.
The Court grants Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's breach
of contract claim against VGA.
Because Plaintiff lacks standing to enforce her claims for breach
of contract and has not pointed to any cognizable breaches, her
claims fail as a matter of law and amendment would be futile.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint with prejudice.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qV0fWc from PacerMonitor.com.
WARNER BROS: Feb. 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set in Zaslav Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York ordered that members of the
purported class in the case captioned as RICHARD COLLURA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, -v.- WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY, INC., DAVID M. ZASLAV, and
GUNNAR WIEDENFELS, Defendants, Case No. 24 Civ. 9027 (KPF)
(S.D.N.Y.) have until February 24, 2025, to move the court to serve
as lead plaintiffs.
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of certain stockholders in Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and Section 20(a) of the 1934
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a).
Plaintiff's counsel notified the Court on December 16, 2024, that
it published the required notice on November 25, 2024.
Opposition to any motion for appointment of lead plaintiff shall be
served and filed by March 10, 2025.
A conference shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on March 27, 2025, in
Courtroom 618, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, New York, New York to consider any motions for appointment
of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and for consolidation.
A copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWLDke
WELLS FARGO: Faces Kappes EFTA Suit in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association. The case is captioned as DANIEL KAPPES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-07650-VC
(N.D. Cal., November 4, 2024).
The suit is brought over the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is a banking company
headquartered in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
Adrian Bacon, Esq.
Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
msnyder@toddflaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 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 ***