/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250113.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 13, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 9
Headlines
ABC FINANCIAL: Marigliano TCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
ABERDEEN DYNAMICS: Hearn Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations
AGC CHEMICALS: Booker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AGC CHEMICALS: Honeck Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
AGENUS INC: Chen Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
ALAMEDA, CA: Settlement Class in Hinkle Gets Conditional Cert.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Brewer Sues Over Unlawful Disability Policy
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Bid to Compel Deposition Partly OK'd
ALTA RESOURCES: Kiesow Sues Over Recent Data Breach
ALTA RESOURCES: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
ALTA RESOURCES: Roberts Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Compel Discovery in Rittmann Partly OK'd
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Jan. 27
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
AMERICAN GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Watson Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid Opposition
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Graves Sues Over Private Data Breach
AMERICAN PATRIOT: Standing Order Entered in Securities Class Suit
AMERICAS 7910: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
AMICA MUTUAL: Jollis Breach of Contact Suit Removed to E.D. Mich.
ANNA JAQUES: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Barrett Suit Gets Final Nod
AT&T INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Rockwell Suit Claims
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Court Dismiss Walden Class Action
BARCLAYS PLC: Proposes to Settle Class Action Lawsuit
BAYOU SUGAR: Flores et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
BEACON WELLNESS: Tucker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
BELL GLOBAL SERVICES: Harrison Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
BIO-SERV CORP: Burchfield Alleges Labor Law Breaches
BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Dixon Class Suit
BMB DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tran Suit Alleges
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set February 21
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Acquisition
CHRISTIE'S INC: Plaintiffs in Data Breach Suit to Address Standing
COATES FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilcox Alleges
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Bradley Suit
DR. REDDY'S: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DREW VENTURES: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
E.L.F. BEAUTY INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EERO LLC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
EMPIRE ACCESS: Freida Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
ENVOY AIR: Removes Adair Suit to C.D. California
EVENT TICKETS: Faces Baugus Suit Over Misleading Ticket Fees
EVERYBODY WANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andzel Alleges
FOSSIL GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Terry Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Holden Owners Sue Over Faulty Transmission Systems
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Powers Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NJ: $1.9-Mil. Class settlement Gets Initial Nod
GRIECO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Correia Suit Says
H&M FASHION: Faces Reyes Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification in McCloud v. Wills
INTIMACY MANAGEMENT: Riley Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
JUNE 18 PROPERTIES: Brito Sues ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
KAO USA INC: Murphy Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
KNIGHTS KEARNY: Faces Chambers Suit Over Labor Law Violations
LEGO BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bids to Seal Docs in Blain Suit Granted in Part
LORAM MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vert Alleges
LOS ANGELES, CA: Carlos Files Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition
M D BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anchahua Suit Says
MDL 3014: Court Severs Amended Third-Party Suit From Philips MDL
MDL 3021: New Class Action Complaint Dismissed From SoClean MDL
MDL 3026: Sudds Consolidated in Infant Formula Product Litigation
MDL 3080: California Suit Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Row
MDL 3094: Inclusion of Craig in Diabetes Meds Liability Row Denied
MISSOURI UNIVERSITY: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $8MM
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ramey Due Jan. 14
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lane Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Perry Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rollberg Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sage Suit Transferred to N.D. California
NATCAP INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Baus Suit Due Sept. 26
NATIONAL COLLECTION: Gurdack Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
NATIONAL COURT: Palazzi Sues Over Inflation of Membership Dues
NATIONAL LASER: Cummane Sues Over Misleading Course Offerings
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Archer Sues Over Private Information Disclosure
NCH HEALTHCARE: Court Denies McFalls' Bid to Strike Declarations
NEGATIVE INC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW YORK LIFE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Linhart
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Filing in Lewis Extended to Feb. 7
NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Final Nod
NEW YORK, NY: Loses Reconsideration Bid on Partial OK of Class Cert
NEWREZ LLC: Removes Sellers Suit to District of Maryland
NORI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Suit Says
NOVO NORDISK: Court Narrows Claims in Chaires Suit
OCEANA USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Tucker Says
OMAHA, NB: Residents Sue Over Bedbugs Infestations
PCB BATTLE: Fletcher Sues Over Time-Shaving Practices
PRN HEALTH: Uses Trap & Trace on Health Website, Mitchener Alleges
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tampons Lead Contamination Class Action
QUALTEK WIRELESS: Dodge Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
REMARKABLE FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Managers, Roman Suit Claims
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
ROOK COFFEE: Gaspa Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
RUMBLE INC: Tucker Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind
RWPN LLC: S.C. Trade Breach Suit Removed to D. Mass.
SAMARIA BEAUTY: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Perez Suit Says
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Getty Images
SOLIANT HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Stamps Suit Says
SUGAR FACTORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
SYNAPTIC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodman Alleges
TBD COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Foltz Suit Alleges
TREEHOUSE FOODS: $1.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 10
TRV MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Alleges
TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Gerber Complaint
VANGUARD INVESTOR: Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 11
VEJA NORTH: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
VERISK ANALYTICS: Dinitz et al. Sue Over Invasion of Privacy
VERTIV CORP: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Sched Denied
WAIAKEA INC: Stevenson Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
WELLS FARGO: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Morris Class Suit
WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes Adorno Suit to C.D. Calif.
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed in Salvatora Suit
YARDI SYSTEMS: Has Until Jan. 14 to Answer 1st Amended Duffy Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: S.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Mata Complaint
ZYMERGEN INC: Bid for Partial Final Judgment in Wang Suit Denied
[*] Duane Morris LLP Released Class Action Analysis for 2025
*********
ABC FINANCIAL: Marigliano TCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The case is styled as Liza Marigliano, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. also
known as: ABC FITNESS SOLUTIONS, Case No. MID L 005658 24 was
removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex County, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Nov. 8,
2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-10403-ZNQ-RLS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
ABC Financial Services, Inc. -- https://abcfitness.com/ -- offers
health club software and billing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
Henry Paul Wolfe, Esq.
Javier Luis Merino, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM PC
1520 US-130 Suite 101
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
Phone: (732) 545-7900
Fax: (732) 545-1030
Email: awolf@dannlaw.com
hwolfe@dannlaw.com
jmerino@dannlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan A. Cass, Esq.
COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL & FURMAN
1600 Market Street, 32nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 564-1700
Fax: (267) 238-4425
Email: jcass@cohenseglias.com
ABERDEEN DYNAMICS: Hearn Sues Over Alleged ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hearn, as the representative of a class of similarly situated
persons, and on behalf of the Aberdeen Dynamics Supply, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, Plaintiff v. Aberdeen Dynamics
Supply, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00605-JFJ (N.D. Okla.,
December 13, 2024) arises from Defendant's failure to implement a
prudent investment policy for the Plan accounts of former
employees.
Plaintiff Hearn alleges that the Defendant violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974's fiduciary standards,
seeking to obtain monetary and appropriate equitable relief.
Aberdeen Dynamics Supply, Inc. designs, builds, and commissions
integrated systems to control valve actuation in industrial
machinery. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan Garrett, Esq.
BRYAN GARRETT PLLC
119 N. Robinson, Suite 650
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 839-8424
Facsimile: (888) 261-7270
E-mail: bryan@bgarrettlaw.com
- and -
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
E-mail: cgokey@engstromlee.com
AGC CHEMICALS: Booker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Booker, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:24-cv-06289-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") 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.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG 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 and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with thyroid cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGC CHEMICALS: Honeck Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coulton Honeck, and other similarly situated v. AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA
U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.;
CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB
FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS,
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC;
GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA,INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.; a, W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; and 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), Case No.
2:24-cv-06383-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") 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.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
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 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.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to
develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged
herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF or TOG 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 and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working
career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed
with testicular cancer and other injuries, as a result of exposure
to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric W. Cracken, Esq.
Steven D. Davis, Esq.
TORHOERMAN LAW LLC
210 S. Main Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Phone: 618-656-4400
Facsimile: 618-656-4401
AGENUS INC: Chen Sues Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL CHEN, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant, AGENUS
INC., Plaintiff v. GARO H. ARMEN, CHRISTINE M. KLASKIN, STEVEN J.
O'DAY, BRIAN CORVESE, SUSAN HIRSCH, ALLISON M. JEYNESELLIS, ULF
WIINBERG, and TIMOTHY R. WRIGHT, Defendants, and AGENUS INC.,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-13088 (D. Mass., December 13,
2024) seeks to remedy the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties
and violations of federal securities law.
The Plaintiff brings this shareholder derivative action on behalf
of Agenus against certain of its officers and members of the
Company's Board for breaches of their fiduciary duties from at
least January 23, 2023 through July 17, 2024. Moreover, the
Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 14(a) and 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Agenus is a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in
developing therapies to activate the body's immune system against
cancer and infections. Its common stock trades on the Nasdaq
Capital Market under the ticker symbol "AGEN." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Coyle IV, Esq.
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (516) 922-5427
Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
E-mail: jcoyle@thebrownlawfirm.net
- and -
Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 683-3516
E-mail: tjm@rl-legal.com
- and -
Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
GRABAR LAW OFFICE
One Liberty Place k
1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (267) 507-6085
E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com
ALAMEDA, CA: Settlement Class in Hinkle Gets Conditional Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WYLENE LENA HINKLE and
DENNIS GASSAWAY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and THE CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF THE BLIND (a California
nonprofit corporation), v. MICHELLE BAASS, in her capacity as
Director of California Department of Health Care Services;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES; CONTRA COSTA COUNTY;
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; Case No. 3:18-cv-06430-MMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maxine Chesney entered an order
granting preliminary approval of class action settlement,
certifying settlement class, approving notice, and setting dates
for final approval:
The Court conditionally certifies the proposed Settlement Class
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).
The Court conditionally appoints Hinkle, Gassaway, and the
California Council of the Blind as Settlement Class
representatives, and conditionally appoints Disability Rights
Advocates, Disability Rights California, and Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund, Plaintiffs' attorneys of record, as
Class Counsel.
The Class Notice shall be disseminated to the Settlement Class to
the Supplemental Declaration of Autumn M. Elliott. No later
than Feb. 28, 2025, the Class Notice shall be posted on the
websites of the California Council of the Blind, DHCS, Disability
Rights California, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,
and Disability Rights Advocates, along with information as to how
to request a copy of the notice.
The Plaintiffs allege that the DHCS, its Director in her official
capacity, and County Defendants fail to provide effective
communication to Blind and visually-impaired Medical consumers in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; section 1557 of the
Affordable Care Act; section 11135 of the California Government
Code; the California Disabled Persons Act; and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6mJH3g at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Brewer Sues Over Unlawful Disability Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRANTLAND ROSS BREWER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-12972 (N.D. Ill., December 17, 2024) case arises from the
wrongful denial of benefits under a group long term disability
policy issued by UNUM for which Allstate serves as the
policyholder.
UNUM denied coverage to Allstate agents and employees who receive
"Termination Buyout" payments upon exit from the company.
Allegedly, Allstate improperly categorized its Termination Buyout
as "QAE earnings," which is what UNUM purports to use to determine
Allstate agents' and employees' "disability earnings." With the
Termination Buyout included, disability earnings exceed the
insured's pre-disability monthly earnings, causing the insureds,
including Plaintiff, to automatically be ineligible for benefits
under UNUM's policy, says the suit.
Headquartered in Northbrook, IL, Allstate Insurance Company offers
insurance products for car, home, rental, motorcycle and more.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
BARTKO LLP
One South Wacker Drive, 36th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (415) 956-1900
E-mail: jzweig@bartkolaw.com
- and -
James M. Terrell, Esq.
P. Michael Yancey, Esq.
Courtney C. Gipson, Esq.
Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Esq.
STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 939-0199
Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
E-mail: myancey@mtattorneys.com
jterrell@mtattorneys.com
cgipson@mtattorneys.com
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Bid to Compel Deposition Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA CHAVEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00166-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Pettit
entered an order granting in part the Defendant's motion to compel
deposition of the Plaintiff's family members.
The Court grants Defendant's Motion to Compel in part and denies
the Defendant's motion to compel in part.
This class action alleges the Defendant breached the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing by charging excessive auto insurance
premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Defendant seeks to depose three members of Plaintiff Minerva
Chavez’s family—Jesus Chavez, Omar Chavez, and Melissa Chavez.
Neither party claims privilege is at issue, so the Court considers
relevancy and proportionality. "Relevant" information is simply
information "relevant to any party's claim or defense."
Because the Court finds at least some "individualized" discovery
relevant, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show why the discovery
sought should be prohibited.
The Plaintiff argues these depositions "are noticed for the purpose
of harassing the Plaintiff, to intrusively drag her family members
into legal disputes, and to delve into her personal life on a
fishing expedition."
The Plaintiff does not develop these arguments further, so she does
not carry her burden, the Court says.
However, the Court has concerns about proportionality, particularly
because all three proposed deponents are non-parties.
To that end, the Court limits each of the three proposed
depositions to one hour in length.
Allstate provides marine, fire, marine, business, credit, and
casualty insurance products and services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SMEGXY at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALTA RESOURCES: Kiesow Sues Over Recent Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Kiesow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ALTA RESOURCES CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00009-BBC (E.D.
Wis., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought arising out of the recent targeted
cyberattack and data breach ("Data Breach") on Defendant's network
that resulted in unauthorized access to consumer data.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and approximately 37,363
Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the form of the loss
of the benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, and the
value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the
effects of the attack. In addition, Plaintiff and Class Members'
sensitive personal information--which was entrusted to Defendant,
its officials, and its agents—was compromised and unlawfully
accessed due to the Data Breach.
Information compromised in the Data Breach includes personally
identifying information ("PII") such as names, addresses, dates of
birth, Social Security numbers, financial account information and
drivers' license numbers, as well as protected health information
("PHI") including health insurance information and medical
information (PII and PHI together are hereinafter refer to as
"Private Information").
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a negligent
and/or reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was
maintained on Defendant's computer system and network in a
condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief,
the mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper
disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice
that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private
Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous
condition.
As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members have
been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and
identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant.
The Defendant describes itself as a "BPO company" providing
business process outsourcing services similar to other business to
business convenience companies like Accenture, IBM, and ADP.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Terence Coates, Esq.
Spencer D. Campbell, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO-CINCINNATI
119 East Court Street, Ste. 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: (513) 651-3700
Fax: (513) 665-0219
Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com
scampbell@msdlegal.com
ALTA RESOURCES: Neal Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alta Resources Corp.
The case is styled as Sherika Neal, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Alta Resources Corp., Case No.
1:25-cv-00008 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 2, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Alta Resources -- https://www.altaresources.com/ -- provides
customer management business-process outsourcing for leading brands
in many industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
ALTA RESOURCES: Roberts Files Suit in E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alta Resources Corp.
The case is styled as Stacy Roberts, Laquina Brooks, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alta Resources
Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00001 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 2, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Alta Resources -- https://www.altaresources.com/ -- provides
customer management business-process outsourcing for leading brands
in many industries.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
AMAZON.COM INC: Bid to Compel Discovery in Rittmann Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNADEAN RITTMANN, et
al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01554-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Coughenour entered an order granting in
part Defendants' motion to compel discovery.
Within 30 days of the order, the Plaintiffs Adams, Adamson,
Alvarez, Brown, Carroll, Diaz, Garadis, Hoyt, Keller, Lawson,
Ponce, Puentes, Ronquillo, Wehmeyer, Wilkins, and Yarleque are
ordered to provide the documents and responses to the extent they
have not already and as they relate to remaining claims. In
addition, the Defendants' motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs with
prejudice and compel depositions is granted.
Finally, the Defendants seek to compel depositions of four
Plaintiffs by Jan. 17, 2025. The Plaintiffs do not oppose.
Therefore, the Court orders the Plaintiffs Raef Lawson, Adriana
Ponce, Cinthia Yarleque, Julia Wehmeyer, and Lisa Evanoff to sit
for a deposition by January 17, 2025, or else face dismissal under
Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i).
The Plaintiffs do not oppose the dismissal of four individuals who
failed to comply with the Court's Oct. 29, 2024, Minute Order
regarding discovery.
Therefore, opt-in Plaintiffs Jillian Pearce, Jonathan Kaminsky,
Marco Wynn, and Max Kogan are dismissed with prejudice for failure
to comply with the Court's discovery order.
The Plaintiffs also do not oppose the dismissal of Sancak Davarci
for failure to respond to discovery or attend his deposition on
Nov. 18, 2024. Therefore, under Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff
Sancak Davarci is also dismissed with prejudice for failure to
attend his properly noticed deposition.
Amazon.com is an online retailer and web service provider.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i0hkph at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Must File Joint Status Report by Jan. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE WILMUTH et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM INC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01774-JNW (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge Jamal Whitehead entered an order setting the following
deadlines for the parties to make their initial disclosures and to
file their Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan:
Combined Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan as Required by Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local Civil Rule 26(f) is due Jan. 27, 2025.
Only the Court may extend these deadlines. If more time is needed,
contact Grant Cogswell, Courtroom Deputy, before any deadlines
lapse at grant_cogswell@wawd.uscourts.gov., the Court says.
The parties must meet and confer before requesting an extension. If
this case involves claims that are exempt from the requirements of
Fed. R. Civ.
Amazon.com is an American multinational technology company engaged
in e-commerce, cloud computing, and online advertising.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0JKlsw at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FAMILY: Faces Class Suit Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP reports that a recent class
action lawsuit filed in a Texas federal court asserts a Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") claim against American Family Life
Assurance Company, Inc. ("AFLAC") for allegedly placing unsolicited
telephone calls to consumers whose phone numbers appeared on the
National Do Not Call Registry ("National DNC"). Plaintiff, whose
number was on the National DNC, alleged a single TCPA claim arising
from her receipt of purported unsolicited life insurance related
telemarketing calls from AFLAC. We discuss the alleged facts at
issue in the proceeding below.
Do Not Call TCPA Claim
In Gonzalez v. Aflac Inc., Plaintiff Yazmin Gonzalez ("Plaintiff")
sued AFLAC on behalf of herself and a putative class of consumers.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that she had placed her cell
phone number on the National DNC on February 15, 2022. Between July
19, 2024 and July 21, 2024, Plaintiff claimed that she received
four unsolicited calls from AFLAC offering its life insurance
products. To identify who the then-unidentified caller was,
Plaintiff asserted that she answered and engaged with the caller
during the fourth call that she received. On this call, Plaintiff
alleged that the individual telemarketer initially provided
Plaintiff only with his name, and then asked Plaintiff a series of
questions to determine whether Plaintiff was eligible for life
insurance. After hearing that she was eligible for a life insurance
policy from AFLAC, Plaintiff alleged that she received a text
message from the caller stating that: (1) he was Plaintiff's
insurance agent; and (2) AFLAC would be (A) sending Plaintiff a
code in 5-10 minutes and (B) asking for Plaintiff to provide the
telemarketer with that code. While on the call, Plaintiff asked the
telemarketer if he was an insurance agent with AFLAC, and the
caller stated that he was. Shortly after receiving the
aforementioned phone calls, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
alleging that AFLAC violated the Do Not Call provisions of the
TCPA.
Hire Experienced TCPA Attorneys
With the TCPA's one-to-one consent rule set to take effect on
January 27, 2025, companies, if they have not already done so, need
to carefully evaluate their TCPA compliance procedures. Defending
TCPA claims can be extremely time consuming and expensive –
violations of the TCPA carry a minimum statutory fine of $500,
which can be increased to $1,500 per violation if deemed to be
willful or knowing. In this rapidly-evolving TCPA legal landscape,
businesses must hire experienced TCPA attorneys who stay up-to-date
with the most recent case law and regulatory changes. Seasoned TCPA
attorneys can help to: (1) ensure telemarketing law compliance; and
(2) explore all avenues to a successful litigation defense.
If you require assistance with telemarketing compliance or related
litigation defense, please email us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or
call us at (212) 246-0900.
The material contained herein is provided for informational
purposes only and is not legal advice nor is it a substitute for
seeking legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique,
and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein
without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. [GN]
AMERICAN GLOBAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Watson Says
-------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN GLOBAL OBLIGORS, INC. d/b/a CHOICE
HOME WARRANTY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00094 (D.N.J., Jan. 6,
2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Watson was employed by the Defendant as a sales
representative.
American Global Obligors, Inc. d/b/a Choice Home Warranty selling
residential home warranties and providing residential home warranty
service to consumers in many states through a web of wholly-owned
subsidiaries. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLC
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
- and -
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC
222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
AMERICAN HONDA: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINNIE CLARK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., and HONDA COMPANY LTD., a Japanese
corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-03147-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order granting the Defendant
American Honda's application to seal portions of opposition to
motion for class certification, rule 702 motions, and motion to
strike.
American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda
Motor Company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 20, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LY2BQu at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD: Graves Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GRAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOOD MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE
COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ANNIEMAC HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-11137 (D.N.J., December 13, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to implement or maintain adequate data security measures
for the sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and members of
the Class.
On or about November 14, 2024, the Defendant announced that it had
experienced a hack and exfiltration of customer data between
approximately August 21, 2024 and August 23, 2024. The Defendant
reported that that this sensitive personal information included at
least names and Social Security numbers. However, it took
approximately three months for the Defendant to notify customers of
the breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
Headquartered in Mount Laurel, American Neighborhood Mortgage
Acceptance Company offers mortgage loans nationwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
AMERICAN PATRIOT: Standing Order Entered in Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION, v. AMERICAN PATRIOT BRANDS, INC., ET AL., Case No.
2:23-cv-05379-AH-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered
an standing order as follows:
-- Service of the Complaint
The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in
accordance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant
to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l).
-- Order Setting Scheduling Conference
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), the Court will issue an
Order
Setting Scheduling Conference.
-- Proposed Orders Must be Lodged and Served
Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the
determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a proposed
order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief
statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate
citations.
-- Motions for Class Certification
If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to
act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the
motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously.
American Patriot focuses on cultivation, manufacture, and
distribution of medicinal and recreational cannabis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 17, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aLq5Mc at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMERICAS 7910: Brito Sues Over Inaccessible Property
----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Brito, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated mobility-impaired individuals v. AMERICAS 7910, LLC; and
LA FAMOSA HOSPITALITY LLC d/b/a CHABELLA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, Case
No. 1:24-cv-24416-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendants' commercial retail plaza (hereinafter the
"Commercial Property") being inaccessible to people who are
disabled.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. Congress provided
commercial businesses one and a half years to implement the Act.
The effective date was January 26, 1992. In spite of this abundant
lead time and the extensive publicity the ADA has received since
1990, Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who
are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of
Defendants' property and the businesses therein.
The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the businesses
named herein located within the Commercial Property to be rife with
ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at
the Commercial Property, and businesses named herein located within
the Commercial Property, and wishes to continue his patronage and
use of each of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property, as prohibited by the
ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a paraplegic (paralyzed from his T-6 vertebrae
down) and requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate.
AMERICAS 7910, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the
businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
AMERICOLD LOGISTICS: Rodriguez Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Rafael Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. AMERICOLD
LOGISTICS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES l
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CV-24-007870 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State California in and for the County of
Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on Nov. 8, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-03129-SCR.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and Overtime;
Failure to Pay Proper Sick Pay; Failure to Pay Proper Vacation
Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage Statements; Failure
to Timely Pay All Final Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Pay
Wages Due, Negotiable and Payable in Cash on Demand; and (9) Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Barbara A. Blackburn, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.830.7200
Fax: 916.561.0828
Email: bblackburn@littler.com
- and -
Hovannes G. Nalbandyan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213.443.4300
Fax: 213.443.4299
Email: hnalbandyan@littler.com
AMICA MUTUAL: Jollis Breach of Contact Suit Removed to E.D. Mich.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ROGER JOLLIS, individually and on Behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 24-209942-CK, was removed from the
Oakland County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on December 13,
2024.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Michigan assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-13328-SKD-KGA to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendant's alleged breach of contract in
connection with its standard and ongoing practice in Michigan of
failing and/refusing to pay the purchasing fees to Michigan total
loss insureds.
Headquartered in Rhode Island, Amica Mutual Insurance Company
offers auto, home, and life insurance. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Charles W. Browning, Esq.
Patrick C. Lannen, Esq.
Mitchell McIntyre, Esq.
Nicholas T. Badalamenti, Esq.
PLUNKETT COONEY
38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
Telephone: (248) 901-4000
E-mail: CBrowning@plunkettcooney.com
ANNA JAQUES: Edwards Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Edwards, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL and BETH ISRAEL LAHEY HEALTH,
INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-10004 (D. Mass., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought
against Defendants for failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information ("PHI")
and personally identifiable information ("PII") stored within
Defendants' information network.
As a healthcare service provider, Defendants knowingly obtain
sensitive patient PHI/PII and have a resulting duty to securely
maintain such information in confidence. The Defendants breached
their duty to protect the sensitive PHI/PII entrusted to it and
failed to abide by its own Privacy Policy (as discussed infra). As
such, Plaintiff brings this Class action on behalf of herself and
the approximately 316,342 other patients whose PHI/PII was accessed
and exposed to unauthorized third parties during a data breach of
Defendants' system on December 25, 2023, which Defendants announced
on or about December 5, 2024 (the "Data Breach").
Indeed, Defendants did not inform Plaintiff of the Data Breach
until December 5, 2024, even though it became aware of the data
breach on or about December 25, 2023. Based on the public
statements of Defendants to date, a wide variety of PHI/PII was
implicated in the breach, including but not limited to, names,
physical addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, health insurance
account information, Social Security numbers, provider taxpayer
identification numbers, and clinical information (e.g., medical
history, diagnoses, treatment, dates of service, and provider
names).
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' inadequate data
security, and its breach of its duty to handle PHI/PII with
reasonable care, Plaintiff's PHI/PII has been accessed by hackers,
posted on the dark web, and exposed to an untold number of
unauthorized individual, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a patient of Defendants and her information was
stored with and handled by Defendants as a result of her dealings
with Defendants.
Anna Jaques Hospital, located in Newburyport, Massachusetts, is one
of the hospitals in the Beth Israel Lahey Health system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: cxenides@sirillp.com
- and -
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
APPLE INC: Class Settlement in Barrett Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, et al., v.
APPLE INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting motion for final
approval of class action settlement.
The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable; that it satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(e) and the fairness and adequacy factors; and that it should be
approved and implemented.
The parties shall file a post-distribution accounting statement in
accordance with this District's Procedural Guidance for Class
Action Settlements no later than Aug. 29, 2025. The Court sets a
compliance deadline hearing on Sept. 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. to
verify timely filing of the post-distribution accounting.
The case arises out of Apple's alleged conduct in connection with a
scam in which Settlement Class Members were tricked into purchasing
Apple App Store & iTunes gift cards by third-party scammers.
Pursuant to the provisional class certification in the Court’s
Preliminary Approval Order, the Settlement Agreement defines the
Settlement Class as follows:
"All persons who purchased an Apple App Store & iTunes gift card
(an "Eligible Gift Card") in the United States and its territories
from Jan. 1, 2015, to July 31, 2020, provided the redemption code
of such Eligible Gift Card to a third party unknown to them who
sought the code under false pretenses, and did not receive a full
refund or other form of compensation for their complete losses from
Apple or any third party."
Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and employees; any
entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest; all
employees of any law firm involved in prosecuting or defending
this litigation, as well as their immediate family members; and all
judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as
their staff and immediate family members. Also excluded from the
Class are Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request
exclusion.
The Settlement Agreement provides for a $35 million
non-reversionary fund, which will be used to fully reimburse
claimants for the money they lost in the scams.
Apple designs, manufactures and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables and accessories, and sells a variety
of related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 19, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sGzCdQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AT&T INC: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Rockwell Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK ROCKWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AT&T, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00004-RSH-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 2, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant transmitted marketing
text messages to residential telephone numbers without prior
written 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.
AT&T, Inc. is a telecommunications company headquartered in Dallas,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON: Court Dismiss Walden Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON,
N.A., Case No. 2:20-cv-01972-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Christopher Brown entered an order:
-- granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction; and dismissing without prejudice Plaintiffs Stephen
and Leslie Walden's amended complaint;
The Court further entered an order that should the Waldens seek to
amend their complaint, they shall file a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint and include the proposed amendment therein
by Jan. 31, 2025.
Alternatively, if the Waldens seek to proceed with these claims in
their individual capacities, they shall file a notice of their
intent to do so by Jan. 31, 2025.
If the Waldens elect to stand on their amended complaint and not
file such a motion or notice by that date, then the dismissal
without prejudice set forth in this Order shall be converted to
dismissal with prejudice without further notice or Order of Court.
The motion for class certification and the deferred ruling on the
motion for summary judgment on entitlement to disgorged fees are
denied as moot, the Court adds.
Bank of New York Mellon is an American international financial
services company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AVmMoy at no extra
charge.[CC]
BARCLAYS PLC: Proposes to Settle Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
IN RE BARCLAYS PLC
SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 1:22-cv-08172-KPF
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
To: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired American Depository Shares of Barclays PLC during the
period from February 18, 2021 through February 14, 2023, both dates
inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby.
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 Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff Boston Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all
members of the proposed Settlement Class, and Barclays PLC
("Barclays" or the "Company"), James E. Staley, C.S.
Venkatakrishnan, and Tushar Morzaria (collectively, "Defendants"),
have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned class action (the "Action") in exchange for payment
of $19,500,000 (the "Settlement").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla,
either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on March
18, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. ET in Courtroom 618 of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY
10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of November
27, 2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement
Fund") to eligible Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without
providing another written notice. Information about the hearing
will be posted at www.BarclaysSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT
need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a long-form Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses ("Notice") and Claim Form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by visiting
www.BarclaysSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:
Barclays Securities Settlement
c/o Verita Global, LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171
info@BarclaysSecuritiesSettlement.com
(866) 724-6406
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
Christine M. Fox, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877
If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than March 13,
2025. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit
a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than February 25, 2025. If
you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will
not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than February 25,
2025.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: January 6, 2025
BY ORDER OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]
BAYOU SUGAR: Flores et al. Sue Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN ALEJANDRO FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs v. BAYOU SUGAR GROWERS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01012-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., December
13, 2024) is a class action lawsuit seeking redress for Defendant's
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Louisiana
Wage Payment Law, Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:631, the law of
contracts, and for unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs are migrant workers employed during the sugarcane
grinding season by Bayou Sugar Growers, Inc. under the federal H-2A
work visa program between 2021 and 2024. The Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated regularly were required to work more than 40
hours during each workweek, but Bayou never paid them overtime
wages.
Headquartered in St. Martin Parish, LA, Bayou Sugar Growers, Inc.
operates business throughout Louisiana and is engaged in
transporting sugarcane to sugar processing mill operated by the
Louisiana Sugar Cane Cooperative, Inc. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Hannah Wolf, Esq.
Caitlin Berberich, Esq.
SOUTHERN MIGRANT LEGAL SERVICES
A Project of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc.
311 Plus Park Blvd., Ste. 135
Nashville, TN 37217
Telephone: (615) 538-0725
Facsimile: (615) 366-3349
E-mail: cberberich@trla.org
- and -
Daniel Davis, Esq.
ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
4465 Bluebonnet Blvd, Suite A
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Telephone: (225) 336-3394
Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com
BEACON WELLNESS: Tucker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEACON WELLNESS BRANDS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00116 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 6, 2025) alleges violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://myplusone.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Beacon Wellness Brands, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets personal care, beauty care, and sexual wellness devices and
accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
BELL GLOBAL SERVICES: Harrison Files FDCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BELL GLOBAL SERVICES
LLC. The case is styled as Delane Harrison, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELL GLOBAL SERVICES
LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-10399-EP-JRA (D.N.J., Nov. 8, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Bell Global Services -- https://www.bellgloballlc.com/ -- was
founded to provide businesses with innovative, efficient, and
ethical debt collection services worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua Cohen, Esq.
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601-2726
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com
ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
BIO-SERV CORP: Burchfield Alleges Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM T. BURCHFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BIO-SERV CORPORATION, d/b/a Rose
Pest Solutions, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-13338-SFC-EAS (E.D.
Mich., December 13, 2024) seeks redress for Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.
From approximately October 2023 to January 23, 2024, the Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant as technician in Ohio. The Plaintiff and
other similarly situated technicians regularly worked more than 40
hours per week. The Plaintiff estimates that, on average, he worked
approximately 50 to 60 hours per week during his employment with
Defendant. However, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated technicians overtime compensation for the hours
they worked over 40 per workweek. As a result of Defendant's
unlawful practice and policy, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation,
says the suit.
Bio-Serv Corporation is a pest control company that employs pest
control technicians in various service areas in various different
states across the country, including Michigan, Ohio, Indiana,
Kentucky, West Virgina, and Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
BLIBAUM AND ASSOCIATES: Court Refuses to Dismiss Dixon Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie R. Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denies the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion for Sanctions
in the lawsuit styled DANIELLE DIXON, et al., Plaintiffs v. BLIBAUM
AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00029-JRR (D. Md.).
Defendant Henderson-Webb is the property and general manager of The
Bluffs at Hawthorne, LLLP, a Maryland limited liability limited
partnership that owns The Bluffs at Hawthorne, a rental community
in Howard County, Maryland. In October 2022, named Plaintiffs
Danielle and Shaul Dixon began renting a property in The Bluffs at
Hawthorne from Defendant Henderson-Webb.
The Plaintiffs subsequently failed to pay rent and Defendant
Henderson-Webb attempted to collect the overdue rent by posting the
Plaintiffs' overdue balance on its web payment portal and notifying
them of its intent to file an eviction action. Additionally,
Defendant Blibaum and Associates, on behalf of and as counsel for
Defendant Henderson-Webb, filed two actions in the District Court
of Maryland for Howard County seeking payment of the overdue rent.
In response to these efforts, the Plaintiffs made additional
payments and applied for rental assistance from the Community
Action Council of Howard County. Their rental assistance
application was denied on the grounds that Defendant Henderson-Webb
did not have a rental license for The Bluffs at Hawthorne as
required by Maryland law.
In January 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the class action Complaint
alleging that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") by attempting to collect unpaid rent from
tenants at The Bluffs at Hawthorne while the property was
unlicensed. Additionally, they allege that Defendant Henderson-Webb
violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA") and
Maryland's Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA") by engaging in
these same unlicensed debt collection efforts.
The Plaintiffs also request declaratory judgment under the Maryland
Declaratory Judgment Act. Finally, the Plaintiffs seek
certification of two plaintiff classes.
In response to the Complaint, the Defendants filed the instant
motions. The Defendants assert that at all relevant times, The
Bluffs at Hawthorne maintained the required rental license. The
Defendants seek sanctions against the Plaintiffs under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 11(c) for ignoring or rejecting the Defendants'
notice to the Plaintiffs of the existence of the license and for
failing "to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to filing
suit."
The Defendants assert dismissal of the Complaint, or summary
judgment in their favor, is warranted because Henderson-Webb was
licensed during the relevant period.
Because there has been no discovery in this case, Judge Rubin notes
that the Plaintiffs properly submit a Rule 56(d) declaration (of
the Plaintiffs' counsel) describing what they contend is essential
discovery, including the Defendants' internal communications
regarding the license and correspondence with Howard County
regarding same. Further, the Plaintiffs contest the authenticity
and admissibility of the correspondence submitted by the Defendants
(which was not submitted with an attestation of authenticity), and
relatedly urge that, even if the Defendants' exhibits are
authentic, they are inadmissible hearsay and other admissible
evidence (described by the Plaintiffs in their papers) generates a
genuine dispute as to the licensure at issue.
At this time, the Court makes no determination of the authenticity
or admissibility of the documents the Defendants submit; rather,
the point is that the Plaintiffs raise a reasonable contest to the
Court's reliance on them in resolving the Motion.
In view of the foregoing, the Court declines to convert the motion
to one for summary judgment. Instead, per Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
will focus its inquiry on the sufficiency of the facts relied upon
by the Plaintiffs in the complaint.
Although the title of the Motion for Sanctions suggests the
Defendants will argue that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim per
Rule 12(b)(6), they make no such argument, Judge Rubin notes.
Instead, the Defendants solely argue they are entitled to summary
judgment and do not contend that the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails
under Rule 12(b)(6).
Specifically, the Defendants assert that Defendant Henderson-Webb
maintained the proper rental license at all relevant times. The
gravamen of all four (4) counts alleged by the Plaintiffs is
whether Henderson-Webb operated without a license to enter into
residential lease agreements throughout 2023. If Henderson-Web did,
in fact, operate with a license during this period, then all counts
alleged by the Plaintiffs must fail.
The Defendants do not contend that the Plaintiffs fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted if Defendant Henderson-Webb
was unlicensed while seeking to collect rent from the Plaintiffs.
In response to the Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendant
Henderson-Webb was unlicensed at the relevant time, the Defendants
rely on email correspondence purporting to be from the Howard
County Department of Inspections, Licenses and Permits to
demonstrate that Henderson-Webb did not experience a licensure gap
and was licensed during the entirety of the relevant period, thus,
warranting a defense judgment.
Although the Defendants' exhibits may be viewed as "integral" to
the Complaint, the Plaintiffs mount a legitimate authenticity
challenge. Therefore, the Court will not consider the Defendants'
exhibits. Because the Defendants, in fact, do not mount a 12(b)(6)
challenge, the Court will not (sua sponte) search for 12(b)(6)
deficiencies in the pleading, the Motion, assessed under Rule
12(b)(6), is denied.
In a separate motion, the Defendants seek sanctions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c). The Defendants allege that the
Plaintiffs "failed to conduct a reasonable investigation prior to
filing suit." The Plaintiffs' allegation that Defendant
Henderson-Webb was unlicensed is supported by the fact that the
Plaintiffs' request for rental assistance was allegedly denied by
the Community Action Council of Howard County because Defendant
Henderson-Webb could not provide proof of its license, and stated
it did not have a rental license for the property.
Accordingly, Judge Rubin finds the Plaintiffs' factual allegations
are supported by information obtained prior to filing. Sanctions
are not called for here, Judge Rubin points out.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/pfbnrvmu from PacerMonitor.com.
BMB DINING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Tran Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
BRITTNEY KAYLEE TRAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BMB DINING SERVICES KATY, INC.
d/b/a Bombshells Restaurant and Bar, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00033 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 3, 2025) 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 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a server.
BMB Dining Services Katy, Inc. owns and operates a military themed
restaurant in Houston Texas, under the name Bombshells Restaurant &
Bar. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
TRAN LAW FIRM
800 Town and Country Blvd. Suite 500
Houston, TX 77024
Telephone: (713) 223-8855
Email: trang@tranlf.com
service@tranlf.com
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set February 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law
firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Capri Holdings Limited ("Capri" or "the Company") (NYSE:
CPRI) and certain of its officers.
Class Definition
This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Capri
securities between August 10, 2023 and October 24, 2024, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm’s site: bgandg.com/CPRI.
Case Details
The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants
made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the accessible
luxury handbag market is a distinct and well-defined market within
the overall handbag market and understood as such by the Individual
defendants, as well as by other Capri and Tapestry executives; (2)
Capri and Tapestry maintained analogous production facilities and
supply chains for their accessible luxury handbags that were
distinct from the production facilities and supply chains used to
manufacture luxury or mass market handbags, confirming that the
accessible luxury handbag market is distinct from the mass market
and luxury handbag markets; (3) Capri and Tapestry internally
considered Coach and Michael Kors to be each other's closest and
most direct competitors; (4) conversely, Capri and Tapestry did not
internally consider their handbag brands to be in direct
competition with luxury handbags or mass market handbags; (5) a
primary internal rationale for the Capri Acquisition, the
acquisition of Capri by Tapestry, was to consolidate prevalent
brands within the accessible luxury handbag market so as to reduce
competition, increase prices, improve profit margins, and reduce
consumer choice within that market; and (6) as a result of (1)-(5)
above, the risk of adverse regulatory actions and/or the Capri
Acquisition being blocked was materially higher than represented by
Defendants.
What's Next?
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm’s site:
bgandg.com/CPRI. or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Capri you
have until February 21, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as lead plaintiff.
There is No Cost to You
We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis.
That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket
expenses and attorneys’ fees, usually a percentage of the total
recovery, only if we are successful.
Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm
that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and
shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors nationwide.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, X, Facebook, or Instagram.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
Contacts
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller
332-239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nationally recognized law firm Berger Montague PC informs investors
that a lawsuit was filed against CAPRI HOLDINGS LIMITED ("Capri" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CPRI) on behalf of purchasers of CAPRI
securities between August 10, 2023 and October 24,2024, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Investors who purchased or acquired CAPRI securities during the
Class Period may, no later than FEBRUARY 21, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
Capri is a UK-based market of apparel and accessories. It owns
several fashion brands, such as Michael Kors, which manufactures
and sells handbags, among other things. Tapestry, Inc. is also a
fashion firm, and it owns fashion brands such as Coach and Kate
Spade.
On August 10, 2023, Capri and Tapestry announced that they had
entered into a merger agreement whereby Tapestry would purchase
Capri for $57 per share in cash. The Capri acquisition would
combine three close competitors: Tapestry's Coach and Kate Spade
brands and Capri's Michael Kors brand.
According to the class action lawsuit, defendants failed to
disclose that a primary internal rationale for the Capri
acquisition was to consolidate brands within the accessible luxury
handbag market so as to reduce competition, increase prices,
improve profit margins, and reduce consumer choice within that
market. As a result, the risk of adverse regulatory action against
the proposed merger was higher than represented.
On October 24, 2024, following a seven-day hearing, Judge Jennifer
L. Rochon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's motion to
preliminarily enjoin the Capri acquisition. In doing so, the court
determined, among other things, that a "substantial body of
compelling evidence" showed that, in contrast to their public
statements, defendants believed that their brands were direct
competitors in a well-defined "accessible luxury handbag market."
On news, the price of Capri shares fell from $41.60 per share on
October 24, 2024 to a closing price of $21.26 per share on October
26, 2024, a drop of $20.34 per share, nearly 50%.
For additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation, please contact Berger Montague: Andrew Abramowitz at
aabramowitz@bm.net or (215) 875-3015, or Peter Hamner at
phamner@bm.net.
A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Communicating with any
counsel is not necessary to participate or share in any recovery
achieved in this case. Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as a lead plaintiff through counsel of his/her
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an inactive class
member.
Berger Montague, with offices in Philadelphia, Minneapolis,
Delaware, Washington, D.C., San Diego, San Francisco and Chicago,
has been a pioneer in securities class action litigation since its
founding in 1970. Berger Montague has represented individual and
institutional investors for over five decades and serves as lead
counsel in courts throughout the United States.
Contacts:
Andrew Abramowitz, Senior Counsel
Berger Montague
(215) 875-3015
aabramowitz@bm.net
- and -
Peter Hamner
Berger Montague PC
phamner@bm.net [GN]
CHRISTIE'S INC: Plaintiffs in Data Breach Suit to Address Standing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York directs the Plaintiffs to file a supplemental
memorandum of law addressing the question of standing in the
lawsuit captioned IN RE CHRISTIE'S DATA BREACH LITIGATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-04221-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). This Document Relates To: All Member
Cases.
The Court has an obligation to assure itself of Plaintiffs'
standing under Article III. Notably, that obligation extends to
court approval of proposed class action settlements because a court
is powerless to approve a proposed class settlement if it lacks
jurisdiction over the dispute, and federal courts lack jurisdiction
if no named plaintiff has standing.
In light of the foregoing and the Defendant's earlier motion to
dismiss for lack of standing, Judge Furman directs the Plaintiffs
to, no later than Jan. 9, 2025, file a supplemental memorandum of
law, not to exceed 20 pages, addressing the question of standing.
In addition, the Plaintiffs should address the following:
-- The import, if any, of the absence of relief in the
proposed settlement for the State Subclasses alleged in the
First Amended Complaint;
-- Why the Class is limited in the Settlement Agreement to all
persons residing in the United States whose Private
Information was compromised as a result of the Data Breach
and who were sent notice of the Data Breach, when the First
Amended Complaint defines the Nationwide Class and the
State Subclasses as "[a]ll individuals . . . whose Private
Information was accessed and/or acquired in the Data Breach
discovered by Defendant in May 2024, including" -- but
presumably not limited to -- "all those individuals who
received notice of the Data Breach";
-- Assuming the Class is limited to those who already received
notice of the breach — and thus, the members of the Class
are known -- whether the settlement could or should be
structured to provide payments to all Class members rather
than only those who submit claims -- that is, whether the
settlement needs to be a claims-made settlement;
-- Whether the Court can or should require electronic notice
to Class members in a manner that would enable the Class
members to use a link to submit a claim and/or request
payment through platforms such as Zelle, Venmo, or Paypal;
and
-- Why the Court should enjoin and stay "any actions brought
by Settlement Class Members" (other than the named
Plaintiffs) "concerning the Released Claims pending
Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement,"
No later than the same date, the Plaintiffs must file a declaration
from each Class Representative describing, with specificity, what
assistance he or she provided with respect to the investigation of
the case.
No later than Jan. 16, 2025, the Defendant will file a memorandum
of law responding to the Plaintiffs' submissions, not to exceed ten
pages, indicating, in particular, whether it agrees or disagrees
with the Plaintiffs' position on the issue of standing and briefly
explaining its position.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/v5nkwe3e from PacerMonitor.com.
COATES FIELD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Wilcox Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
TYLENE WILCOX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COATES FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:25-cv-00011-HE (W.D. Okla., Jan. 6, 2025) seeks to recover
from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Wilcox was employed by the Defendant as a senior
right-of-way agent.
Coates Field Service, Inc. provides professional services. The
Company provides comprehensive project management including route
selection, title searches, survey and mapping, appraisal,
negotiation, relocation, and damage settlement services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
Matthew S. Yezierski, Esq.
McDONALD WORLEY, P.C.
1770 St. James Place, Suite 100
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 523-5500
Facsimile: (346) 335-4293
Email: gassaad@mcdonaldworley.com
matt@mcdonaldworley.com
- and -
Galvin Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP
2925 Richmond Ave., Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Telephone: (713) 425-6445
Facsimile: (888) 389-9317
Email: Galvin@KennedyAttorney.com
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00016
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.dell.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally
accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore,
Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website
will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
DENTALPLANS.COM: Wins Bid for Interlocutory Appeal in Bradley Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DEBORAH BRADLEY, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DENTALPLANS.COM,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01094-BAH (D. Md.), Judge
Brendan A. Hurson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland grants in part and denies in part DentalPlans' motion to
certify for interlocutory appeal.
Plaintiff Deborah Bradley brought this case on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated against Defendants DentalPlans.com
and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company. On June 6, 2024, the
Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
denied Defendant DentalPlans's motion for summary judgment (the
"Opinion" or "ECF 138") and ECF 139 (implementing order).
On June 17, 2024, DentalPlans moved the Court to certify for
interlocutory appeal the summary judgment portion of the Opinion
and corresponding implementing order. The Plaintiff filed an
opposition, and DentalPlans filed a reply. For the reasons noted in
this Memorandum Opinion, the Motion is granted in part and denied
in part.
DentalPlans operates a "direct-to-consumer marketplace" that sells
"dental savings plans" that allow customers to receive discounts on
dental treatments. The Plaintiff signed up for a Cigna dental
discount plan through DentalPlans during the phone a call in
November of 2018. In signing up for the plan, the Plaintiff orally
agreed to receive automated calls from DentalPlans to keep her
updated with any plan information.
Later, after the Plaintiff expressed that she did not want her plan
to auto-renew, DentalPlans began placing calls to her phone using a
prerecorded voice to inform her that her membership was ending soon
and that she could renew her plan. The Plaintiff chose not to renew
her plan and ignored the calls. The plan expired on Dec. 1, 2019.
After her plan expired, the Plaintiff continued to receive
prerecorded calls from DentalPlans. These calls, characterized by
DentalPlans as "winback" calls, attempted to "win back" the
Plaintiff's business by encouraging her to repurchase her Cigna
plan with DentalPlans. According to DentalPlans's records, the
Plaintiff received ten of these calls between Dec. 3, 2019, and
Feb. 26, 2020, when the calls stopped. DentalPlans estimates that
it placed winback calls to 57,240 former customers during the time
period relevant to this case.
The Plaintiff alleges that she grew increasingly frustrated with
the prerecorded calls from DentalPlans. Ultimately, she filed this
lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47
U.S.C. Section 227, alleging that the Defendants had violated the
statute by placing unauthorized telemarketing calls to her and the
proposed class of former DentalPlans customers.
The Plaintiff initially brought a second claim alleging a violation
of the "do-not-call list" provisions of the TCPA but that claim was
later abandoned and dismissed with prejudice.
After full briefing on the issues, the Court granted the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class (and subclass) pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 23(a) and (b)(3). The Court
first found that the Plaintiff had standing to sue, rejecting
DentalPlans's claim that Bradley merely alleged a "bare procedural
violation" of the kind the Supreme Court found incongruous with the
"the strictures of Article III" in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.
330, 338 (2016). The Court held that the dispute was controlled by
Krakauer v. Dish Network, LLC, 925 F.3d 643, 654 (4th Cir. 2019), a
case where the Fourth Circuit explained that the receipt of
unauthorized telemarketing calls was a sufficient injury to confer
Article III standing.
A second question the Court decided was whether there was a dispute
of material fact over whether the Plaintiff consented to receive
the recorded calls from DentalPlans. This raised the threshold
question of whether the "winback" calls should be classified as
"telemarketing calls" under the TCPA requiring "prior express
written consent," or whether the calls required only "prior express
consent."
After finding that the calls were "telemarketing calls" and, thus,
required "prior express written consent," the Court held that
Bradley's voice recording could not be a valid written signature
under the E-SIGN Act necessary to establish "prior express written
consent" under the TCPA.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court examined the E-SIGN Act and
the TCPA, along with relevant regulations, and held that a plain
reading of these admittedly complex statutes and regulations makes
clear that the TCPA does, indeed, require that information relating
to a transaction or transactions in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce be provided or made available to a consumer in
writing, thereby triggering the E-SIGN Act's additional
disclosures.
Because the TCPA triggered the additional "consumer disclosures"
requirement to render the voice recording a valid signature under
the E-SIGN Act, and because DentalPlans had not provided the
additional required "consumer disclosures," the Court denied
summary judgment to the Defendants. The Court then held
alternatively that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether the Plaintiff intended to make a valid signature through
the voice recording, which is required for an electronic record to
be a writing under the E-SIGN Act.
DentalPlans now asks the Court to certify for immediate appeal two
issues: 1) "Whether the E-SIGN Act's disclosure requirements apply
to the TCPA"; and 2) "Whether a procedural violation of the TCPA is
sufficient to confer Article III standing."
Judge Hurson finds that DentalPlans has met the requirements of 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) as to the question of whether the E-SIGN
Act's consumer disclosure requirements apply to the TCPA. However,
Judge Hurson holds that DentalPlans has not met the requirements of
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) as to the question of whether the
Plaintiff has standing. Hence, the request for an interlocutory
appeal on the question of standing is denied.
For these reasons, the Court rules that DentalPlans's motion to
certify issue for interlocutory appeal is granted in part and
denied in part. The Court certifies the portion of its Order and
Memorandum Opinion addressing whether the E-SIGN Act's disclosure
requirements apply to the TCPA. The remainder of this case is
stayed pending review from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/bp8v7hzk from PacerMonitor.com.
DR. REDDY'S: Henry Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------
Constance Henry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00017
(N.D. Ill., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for
their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Dr. Reddy's Laboratories provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://menolabs.com (hereinafter "Menolabs.com"
or "the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to
its website, and therefore denial of its products and services
offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Menolabs.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' policies, practices, and procedures to
that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
Menolabs.com is a commercial website that offers products and
services for online sale.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th LY,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
DREW VENTURES: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
--------------------------------------------------------------
LEAH WALKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DREW VENTURES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00086 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 6, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.drewshoe.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Drew Ventures, Inc. sells types of shoes including casual,
athletic, dress shoes, orthopedic, slippers, sandals, boots,
insoles, socks, and shoe care items. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com
E.L.F. BEAUTY INC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. E.L.F. BEAUTY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00048
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's website, https://naturium.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. The
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
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.
E.L.F. BEAUTY, INC., operates the Naturium online retail store, as
well as the Naturium interactive Website and advertises, markets,
and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
EERO LLC: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------
Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. EERO LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00002 (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of
the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because the Defendant's website, https://eero.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. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
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.
EERO LLC, operates the Eero online retail store, as well as the
Eero interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: dana@gottlieb.legal
michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
EMPIRE ACCESS: Freida Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensations
------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Freida, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals v. EMPIRE ACCESS CORPORATION, Case No.
6:24-cv-06656-CJS (W.D.N.Y., Nov. 8, 2024), is brought for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL") on behalf of herself, and other similarly
situated, current and former Outside Plant Engineer/MDU Engineer
("OSPs") employed by Empire as a result of the Defendant's failure
to pay compensations.
The Defendant failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other OSPs for
all their hours worked and failed to pay them one and a half times
their hourly rate for the hours that exceeded 40 hours per week in
violation of both the FLSA and the NYLL. In addition, Empire
violated NYLL by not providing the OSPs with wage statements that
accurately set forth the basis of pay and the regular and overtime
hours worked, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working at Empire in February 2023 as a Project
Scheduling Manager.
Empire is a provider of telephone and internet service to
residential and business users in Western New York and
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian M. Melber, Esq.
PERSONIUS MELBER LLP
2100 Main Place Tower
Buffalo, New York 14202
Phone: 716-855-1050
Email: bmm@personiusmelber.com
- and -
Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004
Phone: 646-964-9604
Email: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com
ENVOY AIR: Removes Adair Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of CLEOPHUS V. ADAIR; and OLIVIA M.
NISBET, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ENVOY AIR INC.; ABM INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED; ABM AVIATION, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No.
24STCV31443) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on Jan. 2, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-00004. The case is assigned to Judge Hernan D.
Vera and referred to Magistrate Charles F. Elick.
American Eagle Airlines Inc. was founded in 1998. The company's
line of business includes air transportation over regular routes
and on regular schedules. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Laura Fleming, Esq.
Matthew C. Lewis, Esq.
Jack M. McMenamin, Esq.
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 851-1100
Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
Email: lf@paynefears.com
mcl@paynefears.com
jmm@paynefears.com
EVENT TICKETS: Faces Baugus Suit Over Misleading Ticket Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
OSHEE BAUGUS individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-09552 (S.D.N.Y., December 13, 2024)
alleges violations of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to disclose the total cost of the
ticket, including all ancillary fees, prior to the tickets being
selected for purchase. In addition, the Defendant also failed to
clearly and conspicuously disclose its service fee, says the suit.
Headquartered in Gainesville, FL, Events Tickects Center, Inc. owns
and operates www.eventticketscenter.com and the Event Tickets
Center mobile app, which sells tickets to events throughout the
United States, including in New York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com
EVERYBODY WANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Andzel Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN ANDZEL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EVERYBODY WANTS SOME LLC a/k/a So
Clutch Group and Vice Park, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00007-B
(N.D. Tex., Jan. 2, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Andzel was employed by the Defendant as a bartender.
EVERYBODY WANTS SOME LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Dallas,
Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 591-4564
Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
FOSSIL GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Terry Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIA TERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FOSSIL GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00019 (W.D. Tex., Jan. 6, 2025) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Fossil Group, Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes
consumer fashion accessories. The Company products include an
extensive line of men and women fashion watches and jewelry sold
under proprietary and licensed brands, handbags, small leather
goods, belts, sunglasses, and apparel. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 533-4092
Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
GENERAL MOTORS: Holden Owners Sue Over Faulty Transmission Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tamika Seeto, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that hundreds of
thousands of Holden car owners could be eligible for compensation
after a class action was launched against the car giant for alleged
faulty transmission systems. The lawsuit involves a range of Holden
vehicles sold over the past 13 years.
Law firm Maurice Blackburn said the class action against General
Motors Australia and New Zealand had been brought on behalf of
people who bought certain models of Holden vehicles between January
1, 2011 and December 24, 2024.
Owners of best-selling models including the Commodore VE, the
Commodore VF and the Colorado can register to be part of the class
action if they bought their car during those dates and it was
equipped with a GM 6L 45, GM 6L 50 and GM 6L 80 transmission.
Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Kimi Nishimura said the class
action alleged that the transmission systems in the affected Holden
cars were "defective due to a design fault in the Torque Converter
and Torque Converter Clutch."
"Because of the alleged defect, car owners have experienced
problems with their vehicles including intermittent transmission
shudders, excessive vibrations and harsh gear shifts," Nishimura
said.
"Owners of the affected vehicles have also reported leakage of
automatic transmission fluid, accelerated degradation of
transmission system components and greater servicing requirements.
"The class action alleges that General Motors failed to comply with
the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Australian Consumer
Law and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct."
Nishimura said the cars were one of the biggest investments that
many Aussies made and consumers were entitled to expect that the
cars they bought were "free from defects".
"Through this class action, we are seeking to recover compensation
for those consumers who experienced loss and damage related to the
transmission system in the affected vehicles," she said.
A General Motors spokesperson told Yahoo Finance it does not
comment on ongoing litigation.
"GM stands by its commitment to achieving the best outcomes for
Holden customers," the spokesperson said.
How can I join the class action?
Car owners do not need to register or sign up to be a group member
in the class action. However, people are encouraged to registered
to stay updated on the progress of the case.
Owners can still register if they have sold the vehicle, the
vehicle has been written off, or they acquired an affected vehicle
but haven't experienced any problems with it.
Holden owners can find out more about the class action, including
how to register, on the Maurice Blackburn website. [GN]
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Powers Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTHONY POWERS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEODIS LOGISTICS LLC; REAL TIME
STAFFING SERVICES, LLC dba PROLOGISTIX, and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2433743, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on January 2, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:25-cv-00010 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of
California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law including failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to timely pay overtime wages, failure to
furnish timely and accurate pay statements, failure to pay all
wages upon separation, failure to reimburse all necessary
business-related expenses, and unfair business practices.
Geodis Logistics LLC is a transport and logistics company doing
business in California.
Real Time Staffing Services, LLC dba Prologistix, is a staffing
services firm doing business in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: trusche@seyfarth.com
- and -
Katherine R. Farr, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
GLOUCESTER COUNTY, NJ: $1.9-Mil. Class settlement Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony G. Attrino of NJ Advance Media reports that a New Jersey
Superior Court judge has preliminarily approved a $1.9 million
settlement in a class-action lawsuit challenging Gloucester County
township's property registration program, which can cost homeowners
up to $5,000 in annual fees.
David and Aimee Cappolina, of Franklin Township, filed the lawsuit
claiming the town's "Vacant and Abandoned Property Registration
Program" imposed annual fees on property owners whose homes were
labeled "vacant" or "abandoned," often because of mortgage
delinquencies.
The fees ranged from about $500 to $5,000, according to the
complaint, filed in state court in November 2021.
The Cappolinas claimed the fees far exceeded the costs of
administering the program and amounted to an unlawful
revenue-raising scheme. They also argued that many of the
properties targeted by the ordinance were neither vacant nor
abandoned.
Franklin Township has not admitted wrongdoing as part of the
settlement. In a statement, the township said it was settling "to
avoid the risk, burden, uncertainty and expense of continued
litigation."
The settlement, approved on Nov. 21, could compensate thousands of
affected property owners, according to court filings.
A final fairness hearing is set for Feb. 7, when residents can
voice opinions on the agreement.
Stephen P. DeNittis, co-counsel for the class, criticized the
program as punitive tax on homeowners struggling to keep up with
their mortgages.
"We're hopeful this settlement provides some relief and sets a
precedent for similar cases across New Jersey," DeNittis said in a
statement.
In their lawsuit, the Cappolinas claimed a private company
administered the program in Franklin Township. The complaint
alleged that delegating municipal powers to a for-profit entity
without proper oversight violated state law.
The ordinance at the heart of the controversy, adopted in 2016,
required properties in foreclosure or mortgage default to register
with the program, regardless of occupancy.
Fees escalated each year, with Franklin Township reportedly
collecting the majority of the revenue.
The lawsuit mirrors a class-action case filed in August 2024
against the Atlantic County Improvement Authority and Hamilton
Township.
Leonard Hooker, 66, of Mays Landing, alleges that homeowners are
being charged illegal registration fees under the township's
"Registration Program for Vacant and Abandoned Properties." The
complaint, which spans from 2016 to 2022, focuses on annual fees of
$500 to $1,000 imposed on property owners.
In its Dec. 18 response filed in state court, the improvement
authority denied liability, stating it rests with other parties.
Meanwhile, Hamilton Township has moved to dismiss Hooker's claim,
with a hearing scheduled for Feb. 14. [GN]
GRIECO ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Correia Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CORREIA, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GRIECO ENTERPRISES, LLC and MICHAEL A.
GRIECO, JR., Defendants, Case No. 2477CV01311-A (Mass. Sup., Essex
County, December 13, 2024) arises from Defendants' alleged
violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts
Overtime Law.
During the course of his employment, the Plaintiff worked more than
40 hours for the Defendants in multiple workweeks. However, the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff with proper overtime wages as
required by state law, says the suit.
Headquartered in Seekonk, MA, Grieco Enterprises, LLC operates
several motor vehicle dealerships in Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anastasia Doherty, Esq.
Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
50 Congress Street, Suite 540
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617)338-9400
E-mail: acd@mass-legal.com
H&M FASHION: Faces Reyes Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHALIE REYES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. H&M FASHION USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00053 (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.cos.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, changing
of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive
elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, redundant links where
adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that
transactions be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
H&M Fashion USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
ILLINOIS: Court Denies Class Certification in McCloud v. Wills
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois denies the Plaintiff's
request for class certification in the lawsuit titled 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. 3:24-cv-02643-SMY (S.D. Ill.).
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. Section 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.
The case is now before the Court for preliminary review of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Under Section 1915A,
the Court is required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out
non-meritorious claims.
As an initial matter, Judge Rosenstengel finds McCloud fails to
state a claim against Margaret Madole. Although he alleges that he
wrote grievances and letters to the Administrative Review Board
("ARB"), Madole cannot be liable for simply failing to remedy his
issues through the grievance process. The simple denial or
mishandling of a grievance does not state a claim, Judge
Rosenstengel explains.
Judge Rosenstengel also finds, among other things, that McCloud
includes various potential claims that he fails to attach to a
specific defendant. He alleges that he requested showers while on
suicide watch, but his requests were denied by correctional
officers. He also alleges that he complained to officers and a
lieutenant about the tainted food, but they denied his requests for
medical care.
But McCloud fails to identify these officers by name or John Doe
designation, Judge Rosenstengel holds. Thus, McCloud's claims
regarding his requests for showers and his requests for care in
response to the tainted food are dismissed without prejudice.
At this stage, Judge Rosenstengel holds that McCloud states a
viable conditions of confinement claim against Correction Officer
Kiefer, Major Rowan, and Lieutenant Royster in Count 1 and against
Anthony Wills in Count 3. That is enough at this stage to state a
claim in Counts 1 and 3.
Judge Rosenstengel further holds that McCloud also adequately
states a claim against Kiefer in Count 4 for excessive force.
McCloud fails, however, to state a claim for due process
violations. Thus, McCloud fails to state a due process claim. His
claim in Count 5 against Sandy Walker, Anthony Jones, and Joshua
Shoenbeck is dismissed without prejudice.
Mr. McCloud's claim of medical deliberate indifference against
Angie Craine in Count 2 and his claim against the food supervisors
in Count 6 are unrelated to the claims regarding the conditions of
his cell and use of force by Correctional Officer Kiefer.
Accordingly, consistent with George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007), and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 18 and 20,
the Court will sever Count 2 and Count 6 into separate cases.
Mr. 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. He
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. Thus,
Judge Rosenstengel holds, these claims are not suitable for a class
action.
Judge Rosenstengel holds that 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, Judge Rosenstengel explains. 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.
As to his motion for counsel, McCloud notes that he has contacted
several law firms, who declined to take his case. As to his ability
to represent himself, he notes that the claims are complex and will
need extensive discovery. But given the early stage of the
litigation, Judge Rosenstengel says it is difficult to accurately
evaluate the need for the assistance of counsel. For now, his
request for counsel is denied.
For the reasons stated, Count 3 against Angie Craine and Count 6
against John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 are severed into two separate
cases. In each new case, the Clerk is directed to file the
following documents: this Memorandum and Order, and the Complaint.
As to the remaining claims, Judge Rosenstengel holds that Count 1
will proceed against Correctional Officer Kiefer, Major Rowan, and
Lieutenant Royster. Count 3 will proceed against Anthony Wills.
Count 4 will proceed against Kiefer. Count 5 against Sandy Walker,
Anthony Jones, and Joshua Shoenbeck, as well as any claim against
Margaret Madole are dismissed without prejudice. McCloud's motion
for status of the case is denied.
The Clerk of Court will prepare for Defendants Correctional Officer
Kiefer, Major Rowan, Anthony Wills, and Lieutenant Royster: (1)
Form 5 (Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a
Summons) and (2) Form 6 (Waiver of Service of Summons).
The Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the Complaint and will not waive filing a reply
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g). Pursuant to Administrative
Order No. 244, the Defendants need only respond to the issues
stated in this Merit Review Order.
If judgment is rendered against McCloud, and the judgment includes
the payment of costs under Section 1915, Judge Rosenstengel says he
will be required to pay the full amount of the costs, regardless of
whether his application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
Finally, McCloud is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This will be done in
writing and not later than 14 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs. Failure to comply with this order will cause a
delay in the transmission of court documents and may result in
dismissal of this action for want of prosecution.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2uen2d4x from PacerMonitor.com.
INTIMACY MANAGEMENT: Riley Sues Over Blind's Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTIMACY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00051 (S.D.N.Y., January 3, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.rigbyandpeller.com, contains access barriers which
hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but
not limited to: changing of content without advance warning, the
lack of navigation links, inaccurate focus order, inaccurate
alt-text on graphics, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Intimacy Management Company, LLC is a company that sells online
goods and services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
JUNE 18 PROPERTIES: Brito Sues ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS BRITO, Plaintiff v. JUNE 18 PROPERTIES, LLC; MONOPOLI REY,
LLC d/b/a THE FOOD TRUCK STORE and LA DELFINA GROUP LLC d/b/a LOS
PILARES MIAMI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-24903-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
December 13, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have allegedly
discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full
and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial
property and business located therein.
June 18 Properties, LLC. owns, operates, and oversees a commercial
property in Miami Dade County, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Beverly Virues, Esq.
Armando Mejias, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
amejias@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
aquezada@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
KAO USA INC: Murphy Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility
-------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAO USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09564 (S.D.N.Y., December 13, 2024) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Allegedly, the Defendant failed to take actions to correct these
access barriers in the face of substantial harm and discrimination
to blind class members. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
KAO USA INC. operates the Hello Sunday SPF online retail store, as
well as the Hello Sunday SPF interactive website,
https://www.hellosundayspf.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb (JG-7905)
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
KNIGHTS KEARNY: Faces Chambers Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
NAYANA CHAMBERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KNIGHTS KEARNY VILLA, INC. dba EXPOSE, a
California corporation; DINO PALMIOTTO, an individual; DOE MANAGERS
1- 3; and DOES 4-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-02352-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal., December 17, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code.
Allegedly, the Plaintiff was denied minimum wage payments and
denied overtime as part of Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiff
and other dancers/entertainers as independent contractors.
Headquartered in San Diego, CA, Knights Kearney Villa, Inc.
operates an adult-oriented entertainment facility located at 5520
Kearny Villa Road, San Diego, CA. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 837-2000
E-mail: john@kristensen.law
- and -
Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
EKSM, LLP
1105 Milford Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
E-mail: jellzey@eksm.com
LEGO BRAND: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGO Brand Retail, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-04478-JRT-SGE (D. Minn., December 13, 2024) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to make its website fully
and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low
vision. The Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of
digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full
and equal access to important website content -- content Defendant
makes available to its sighted website users.
Headquartered in Enfield, CT, LEGO Brand Retail, Inc. owns and
operates the website, www.lego.com, which offers Lego blocks and
accessories for sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Bids to Seal Docs in Blain Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California grants in part and denies in part
motions to file documents under seal in the lawsuit entitled SARAH
BLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.).
Before the Court are six motions to file documents under seal
related to briefing of Plaintiff Sarah Blain's motion for class
certification and Defendant Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's
motion to exclude testimony of Allan I. Schwartz.
The Plaintiff brings the putative class action, alleging Liberty
Mutual unfairly profited from the customers it insured during the
global COVID-19 pandemic. After Liberty Mutual filed an answer, the
parties engaged in discovery regarding class certification. Early
in the discovery window, Magistrate Judge Michelle M. Pettit
entered a stipulated protective order at the request of the
parties, which provided, inter alia, that any request to file a
document under seal "must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only
of the confidential or privileged material."
The instant motions to file documents under seal correspond to the
comprehensive briefing of the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and Liberty Mutual's responsive motion to exclude.
The Plaintiff filed her initial motion to seal seeking to seal the
entirety of Exhibits 1 and 11 and portions of Exhibits 2 and 8
attached to the Declaration of Teresa M. Becvar filed in support of
her motion for class certification. Liberty Mutual joined in the
Plaintiff's motion stating the exhibits at issue "contain internal
and confidential financial material related to Liberty Mutual's
operations in California," that Liberty Mutual designated as
confidential pursuant to the Protective Order.
The Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiff's motion
to seal. The motion is granted as to Exhibit 1, and denied as to
Exhibits 2 and 8.
Liberty Mutual filed a motion seeking to seal documents submitted
in support of its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and a single sentence in its brief. Shortly
thereafter, Liberty Mutual filed a second motion seeking to seal
the same information for the same reasons where it appears in
Liberty Mutual's motion to exclude.
The Plaintiff then filed motions seeking to seal (1) specific
redactions of Schwartz's rebuttal declaration attached to the
Plaintiff's reply in support of her motion for class certification,
(2) corresponding quotes in the brief, and (3) corresponding
references in her publicly filed opposition to Liberty Mutual's
motion to exclude because all rely on an exhibit subject to Liberty
Mutual's prior request.
Finally, Liberty Mutual filed a motion seeking to seal narrowly
tailored redactions to Nancy Watkins' Rebuttal Report and Exhibit 1
attached thereto because both cite to and quote an exhibit subject
to Liberty Mutual's prior request.
Due to the overlap in the requests, the parties jointly filed a
notice of non-opposition to each other's motions.
For reasons set forth in the Order, the Court grants in part and
denies in part Liberty Mutual's motion to seal. As Liberty Mutual's
requests in Document Number 100 are subsumed by the requests of
Document Number 91, the former is denied for the same reasons as
set forth for Exhibits 12 and 13 of Document Number 91. The
requests set forth in Document Numbers 112, 116, and 124 all are
based on citation to or quotation of LMBlain0008344, which is
Exhibit 13 in Document Number 91, addressed in the Order.
Accordingly, Document Numbers 112, 116, and 124 are denied for the
same reasons as set forth for Exhibits 13 of Document Number 91.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
without prejudice Document Numbers 81 and 91. The Clerk of Court is
directed to seal the information currently lodged at Document
Number 92.
The Court denies without prejudice Document Numbers 100, 112, 116,
and 124. Any renewed motion to file under seal information for
which sealing was denied in the instant Order had to be filed on
Dec. 30, 2024. Any such motion must be narrowly tailored and
include sufficient explanation and case law to demonstrate a
compelling reason to seal each piece of information the parties
seek to seal.
If neither party timely files a renewed motion, then each party
must refile a public version of each lodged document, in compliance
with the directives below, on Jan. 6, 2025:
a. Publicly file all information currently lodged at Document
Number 82 except the limited redactions to Exhibit 1 (Doc.
Nos. 84-1 at 8 (public Ex. 1); 82-1 at 8–11 (lodged Ex. 1)
granted by the Court supra; and
b. Publicly file all information currently lodged at Document
Numbers 93, 101, 113, and 125.
Any future motion to seal must comply with the stipulated
Protective Order governing this case and Judge Battaglia's Civil
Case Procedures.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y8ub46nr from PacerMonitor.com.
LORAM MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Vert Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT VERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LORAM MAINTENANCE OF WAY, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 0:25-cv-00047 (D. Minn., Jan. 6, 2025) alleges violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Vert was employed by the Defendant as a product
specialist.
Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. is a railroad maintenance equipment
and services provider. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy R. Mason, Esq.
CUMMINS & BONESTROO
2251 Tower Drive West Suite 100
Stillwater, MN 55082
Telephone: (651) 300-0091
Email: amason@cblawoffices.com
- and -
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Suite 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
LOS ANGELES, CA: Carlos Files Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition
------------------------------------------------------------
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed against
Superior Court Los Angeles County. The case is styled as In re
JORGE HUMBERTO CARLOS on Habeas Corpus, Case No. B341791, in the
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, on October
31, 2024.
The suit is originally filed in the Superior Court of California,
Los Angeles County, captioned as Jorge Humberto Carlos, Petitioner
v. Superior Court Los Angeles County, Respondent, Case No.
VA111515. The case is assigned to Judge Maria Davalos.
Superior Court Los Angeles County is the California Superior Court
located in Los Angeles County. It is the largest single unified
trial court in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
M D BUILDING: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anchahua Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDISON ANCHAHUA; and FRANKLIN ANCHAHUA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M D BUILDING
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a MERIDAN BUILDING SERVICES; and MICHAEL K
CARLIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00035 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2025)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as janitors.
M D Building Services, Inc. d/b/a Meridan Building Services is a
full service janitorial company in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CK Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1188
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
MDL 3014: Court Severs Amended Third-Party Suit From Philips MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigations captioned IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED
CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LITIGATION,
Master Docket: Misc. No. 21-1230, MDL No. 3014 (W.D. Pa.); IN RE:
SOCLEAN, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 22-mc-152, MDL No. 3021 (W.D. Pa.),
Senior District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum
Opinion and an Order ruling that:
(1) the amended third-party complaint in the Philips MDL
(Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF No. 2922) will be severed and the
Clerk of Court is instructed to place it in a new civil
action, which will be marked as related to the Philips
MDL;
(2) the pending motion to strike/dismiss the third-party
complaint filed by SoClean, as defined in the Memorandum
Opinion (Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF Nos. 2995, 2997) is
granted in part, to the extent the third-party complaint
is severed and will proceed as a separate civil action.
That motion to dismiss will also be placed in the new
civil action;
(3) the new "class action complaint" filed in the SoClean MDL
(Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No. 660) is dismissed without
prejudice to Philips, as defined in the Memorandum
Opinion, being able to refile the complaint in a new civil
action in accordance with the case management deadlines.
The case management deadlines provides that if Philips chooses to
refile its class action complaint in this Court, it must do so on
or before Jan. 7, 2025, at a new civil action. SoClean will file
any motion to dismiss the refiled class action complaint on or
before Jan. 28, 2025. Philips will file its response to any motion
to dismiss by Feb. 11, 2025. The Court will be prepared to hear
argument on the motions to dismiss in the new civil actions, if
necessary, on or after Feb. 18, 2025, at a date and time convenient
to the court and counsel.
SoClean's motion to strike/dismiss the class action complaint
(Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No. 737) is denied without prejudice to
reassert if Philips refiles the class action complaint in a new
civil action.
The Court has been presiding over two related multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") matters, MDL No. 3014 (the "Philips MDL") and
MDL No. 3021 (the "SoClean MDL"), for a few years. The Philips MDL
arose from the June 2021 recall of approximately 10,000,000
continuous positive air pressure ("CPAP") and other devices sold by
Philips (the "Devices"). The class action and personal injury
claims by Device users (which initially justified management as
MDLs) are expected to be resolved in the Philips MDL. The Philips
MDL should be substantially resolved in early 2025. Among the
claims in the SoClean MDL is a dispute between Philips and SoClean
arising from SoClean's marketing of an ozone cleaning system for
use with, among others, Philips' CPAP machines.
As part of the settlement of the Economic Loss claims in the
Philips MDL in April 2024, the individual non-opt out class member
plaintiffs assigned their Economic Loss claims to Philips. In
August 2024, Philips filed two new complaints against SoClean
premised on the settlement and those assignments: (1) an amended
third-party complaint for contribution against SoClean in the
Philips MDL (Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF No. 2922); and (2) a new "class
action complaint" in the SoClean MDL.
The class action complaint is an entirely new lawsuit. Philips paid
the filing fee for a new case and attached summonses and a civil
information sheet. Philips, however, did not file the class action
complaint as a new civil case; instead, Philips filed it on the
docket of the existing SoClean MDL (Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No.
660).
The class action complaint purports to be based on the assignment
of Economic Loss claims from individual non-opt out class members
to Philips in the Philips MDL settlement. The civil case
information sheet stated that the new case is related to the
SoClean MDL and the origin of the new case was an MDL transfer (ECF
No. 653-9). No transfer order from the MDL panel was provided with
respect to the new class action complaint. Philips did not file a
Class Action Statement, as contemplated by Local Rule 23.
SoClean filed motions to strike/dismiss both of the new complaints
for numerous substantive and procedural reasons (Misc. No. 21-1230,
ECF Nos. 2995, 2997; Misc. No. 22 152, ECF No. 737). Counsel are
conferring about oral argument on those motions and notified the
Court they will be proposing dates in February 2025.
Because it appears to the Court that both of the new complaints are
not consistent with the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of
the MDLs, as currently filed, the Court will sever the third-party
complaint and dismiss the class action complaint now, without
prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion. The
court will set forth accelerated case management deadlines, if
Philips chooses to refile the class action complaint in this forum,
and will endeavor to hear argument on renewed motions to dismiss
(if necessary) in February 2025, as currently contemplated by
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2y34pw9p from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated is available at
https://tinyurl.com/cxw2ww9w from PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 3021: New Class Action Complaint Dismissed From SoClean MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigations captioned IN RE: PHILIPS RECALLED
CPAP, BI-LEVEL PAP, AND MECHANICAL VENTILATOR PRODUCTS LITIGATION,
Master Docket: Misc. No. 21-1230, MDL No. 3014 (W.D. Pa.); IN RE:
SOCLEAN, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Master Docket No. 22-mc-152, MDL No. 3021 (W.D. Pa.),
Senior District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum
Opinion and an Order ruling that:
(1) the amended third-party complaint in the Philips MDL
(Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF No. 2922) will be severed and the
Clerk of Court is instructed to place it in a new civil
action, which will be marked as related to the Philips
MDL;
(2) the pending motion to strike/dismiss the third-party
complaint filed by SoClean, as defined in the Memorandum
Opinion (Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF Nos. 2995, 2997) is
granted in part, to the extent the third-party complaint
is severed and will proceed as a separate civil action.
That motion to dismiss will also be placed in the new
civil action;
(3) the new "class action complaint" filed in the SoClean MDL
(Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No. 660) is dismissed without
prejudice to Philips, as defined in the Memorandum
Opinion, being able to refile the complaint in a new civil
action in accordance with the case management deadlines.
The case management deadlines provides that if Philips chooses to
refile its class action complaint in this Court, it must do so on
or before Jan. 7, 2025, at a new civil action. SoClean will file
any motion to dismiss the refiled class action complaint on or
before Jan. 28, 2025. Philips will file its response to any motion
to dismiss by Feb. 11, 2025. The Court will be prepared to hear
argument on the motions to dismiss in the new civil actions, if
necessary, on or after Feb. 18, 2025, at a date and time convenient
to the court and counsel.
SoClean's motion to strike/dismiss the class action complaint
(Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No. 737) is denied without prejudice to
reassert if Philips refiles the class action complaint in a new
civil action.
The Court has been presiding over two related multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") matters, MDL No. 3014 (the "Philips MDL") and
MDL No. 3021 (the "SoClean MDL"), for a few years. The Philips MDL
arose from the June 2021 recall of approximately 10,000,000
continuous positive air pressure ("CPAP") and other devices sold by
Philips (the "Devices"). The class action and personal injury
claims by Device users (which initially justified management as
MDLs) are expected to be resolved in the Philips MDL. The Philips
MDL should be substantially resolved in early 2025. Among the
claims in the SoClean MDL is a dispute between Philips and SoClean
arising from SoClean's marketing of an ozone cleaning system for
use with, among others, Philips' CPAP machines.
As part of the settlement of the Economic Loss claims in the
Philips MDL in April 2024, the individual non-opt out class member
plaintiffs assigned their Economic Loss claims to Philips. In
August 2024, Philips filed two new complaints against SoClean
premised on the settlement and those assignments: (1) an amended
third-party complaint for contribution against SoClean in the
Philips MDL (Misc. No. 21-1230, ECF No. 2922); and (2) a new "class
action complaint" in the SoClean MDL.
The class action complaint is an entirely new lawsuit. Philips paid
the filing fee for a new case and attached summonses and a civil
information sheet. Philips, however, did not file the class action
complaint as a new civil case; instead, Philips filed it on the
docket of the existing SoClean MDL (Misc. No. 22-152, ECF No.
660).
The class action complaint purports to be based on the assignment
of Economic Loss claims from individual non-opt out class members
to Philips in the Philips MDL settlement. The civil case
information sheet stated that the new case is related to the
SoClean MDL and the origin of the new case was an MDL transfer (ECF
No. 653-9). No transfer order from the MDL panel was provided with
respect to the new class action complaint. Philips did not file a
Class Action Statement, as contemplated by Local Rule 23.
SoClean filed motions to strike/dismiss both of the new complaints
for numerous substantive and procedural reasons (Misc. No. 21-1230,
ECF Nos. 2995, 2997; Misc. No. 22 152, ECF No. 737). Counsel are
conferring about oral argument on those motions and notified the
Court they will be proposing dates in February 2025.
Because it appears to the Court that both of the new complaints are
not consistent with the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of
the MDLs, as currently filed, the Court will sever the third-party
complaint and dismiss the class action complaint now, without
prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion. The
court will set forth accelerated case management deadlines, if
Philips chooses to refile the class action complaint in this forum,
and will endeavor to hear argument on renewed motions to dismiss
(if necessary) in February 2025, as currently contemplated by
counsel.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3e7dkuta from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mw344xpt from PacerMonitor.com.
MDL 3026: Sudds Consolidated in Infant Formula Product Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In In re:Abbott Laboratories, ert al., Preterm Infant Nutrition
Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3026, Judge Karen K.
Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transfers "Sudds v. Abbott Laboratories, et al.," C.A.
3:24-06404 (N.D. Cal.) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer for inclusion in the coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Sudds moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring the
action while defendant Abbott Laboratories opposed the motion.
The actions in the MDL share factual questions arising from
allegations that cow's milk-based infant formula products marketed
under the Similac (Abbott) and Enfamil (Mead Johnson) brand names
have a higher propensity to cause necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC)
in infants born prematurely than other, allegedly safer
alternatives.
Plaintiff does not dispute that Sudds falls within the MDL's ambit
because it involves injuries arising from an infant's ingestion of
cow's milk-based preterm infant formulas manufactured by Abbott and
Mead Johnson.
In support of her motion to vacate, Plaintiff argued that federal
subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and that her pending motion
for remand to state court should be decided before transfer.
However, the panel was not persuaded by this argument. The panel
held that such jurisdictional objections generally do not present
an impediment to transfer.
A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 Transfer Order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3026-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf
MDL 3080: California Suit Consolidated in Insulin Pricing Row
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Insulin Pricing
Litigation," MDL No. 3080, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, Acting
Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
transfers the case styled as "People of the State of California V.
Eli Lilly and Company, et al.," C.A. No. 2:23−01929 (C.D. Cal.),
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to Judge Brian R. Martinotti
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
The plaintiff moved to vacate the order conditionally transferring
the action to MDL No. 3080, while defendants CVS Health Corporation
and CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C., Express Scripts, Inc. and OptumRx,
Inc. opposed the motion and support transfer.
The MDL concerns an alleged scheme between insulin manufacturers
and pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) to artificially and
fraudulently inflate the price of insulin and other diabetes
medications. The principal players in the alleged scheme are
insulin manufacturers Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Inc.,
and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, and three PBMs – CVS Caremark,
Express Scripts, Optum Rx, and their various corporate affiliates.
The California action concerns the same alleged insulin pricing
scheme and defendants. Transfer will facilitate the efficient
conduct of overlapping pretrial proceedings and avoid the risk of
inconsistent rulings, rules the panel.
Plaintiff principally argues that the action is ill-suited for
transfer because significant proceedings within the Ninth Circuit
have taken place on the issue of remand to state court, in
particular, the Central District of California order granting
remand in 2023, the Ninth Circuit's reversal of that order in 2024,
and, most recently, a renewed motion for remand to state court
still pending before the Central District. Plaintiff asserts that,
given this history, the Central District is the most appropriate
court to rule on the renewed remand motion. However, the panel
routinely has held, including in this MDL, that a pending motion
for remand is not an impediment to transfer.
Plaintiff also argues that its action presents certain differences
that would hinder the efficient conduct of the litigation (ex. its
case focuses solely on California residents and California laws and
the MDL involves additional diabetes drugs beyond those involved in
California). The panel held that such differences do not preclude
transfer given the common factual core; the complaint plainly
alleges the same insulin pricing scheme as the actions in the MDL
and names the same insulin manufacturers and PBMs as the
defendants.
A full-text copy of the court's December 11, 2024 order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3080-Transfer_Order-12-24.pdf
MDL 3094: Inclusion of Craig in Diabetes Meds Liability Row Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the multi-district action captioned "In re: Glucagon-like
Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAS) Products Liability
Litigation," MDL No. 3094, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the
transfer of "Craig v. Novo Nordisk A/S, et al.," C.A. No.
2:24−01075 (N.D. Ala.) to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff moved to transfer while defendants Novo Nordisk Inc. and
Novo Nordisk A/S supported the motion to transfer.
This MDL encompasses personal injury actions stemming from use of
glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), medicines
that are prescribed for, among other things, the treatment of type
2 diabetes and to help certain obese or overweight individuals lose
excess weight. Plaintiffs in the MDL allege that GLP-1 RAs caused
them to suffer gastroparesis, ileus, intestinal obstruction or
pseudo-obstruction, or other gastrointestinal injury, arguing that
the actions alleging these injuries will share common factual and
legal issues with the actions in the MDL asserting claims for
gastrointestinal injuries. Craig sought to expand the scope of the
MDL to include additional injuries, specifically, venous
thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism.
The panel held that transfer of Craig under will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiff argued that actions
alleging DVT injuries will share common factual and legal issues
with the actions in the MDL asserting claims for gastrointestinal
injuries. However, the plaintiff's assertion that his suit shares
the same "mechanism of harm" as the actions in the MDL is
superficial at best. The panel notes that in the recently filed
master complaint in the MDL, the plaintiffs appear to allege a
different mechanism of harm with respect to DVT injuries--namely,
that it is the rapid weight loss attributable to the use of GLP-1
RAs that is the causal factor leading to DVT injuries.
"This MDL has already increased in size considerably since we
centralized this litigation in February 2024. In a concurrent
order, we are adding gastrointestinal injury claims that pertain to
an additional Novo Nordisk GLP-1 RA product (Saxenda). Further
expansion of MDL No. 3094 to include claims for new types of
injuries would significantly complicate the management of this
litigation. Indeed, an MDL that encompassed any potential injury
relating to use of these exceedingly popular weight loss drugs
might quickly become procedurally and substantively unwieldy.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the potential efficiency and
convenience benefits of adding claims for DVT injuries to this MDL
outweigh the increased managerial complexity that the addition of
such claims is likely to create. Accordingly, transfer of Craig is
not warranted," rules the panel.
A full-text copy of the court's December 12, 2024 order is
available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3094-Order_Denying_Transfer-12-24.pdf
MISSOURI UNIVERSITY: Settles 2020 Data Breach Class Suit for $8MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Missouri University Health Care
agreed to an $8 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims it failed to prevent a 2020 data breach.
The MU Health Care settlement benefits individuals whom MU Health
notified that their personal information may have been compromised
in a data breach that occurred May 4-6, 2020.
The MU Health data breach allegedly compromised the sensitive
personal information of 3,000 patients. According to a class action
lawsuit, MU Health could have prevented the data breach through
reasonable cybersecurity measures but failed to protect consumer
information.
MU Health is a health care system in Columbia, Missouri, that
serves central Missouri and the surrounding areas.
MU Health hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to an $8
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the MU Health Care settlement, class members can
receive up to $150 for out-of-pocket expenses and lost time related
to the data breach. This reimbursement covers up to three hours of
lost time at a rate of $25 per hour, as well as documented expenses
or monetary losses.
Class members who did not experience out-of-pocket losses can
receive a fixed cash payment of $60.
If the total number of claims exceeds the settlement fund, both
reimbursement and fixed cash payments may be reduced on a pro rata
basis.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 14, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the MU Health data breach settlement
is scheduled for Feb. 3, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by Jan. 14, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals whom MU Health notified that their personal information
may have been compromised as a result of a data breach that
occurred between May 4-6, 2020
Potential Award
Up to $150
Proof of Purchase
Documentation of expenses or monetary loss, such as receipts,
bills, invoices, bank statements, credit card statements and other
statements
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
01/14/2025
Case Name
Bumbales, et al. v. Curators of the University of Missouri, Case
No. 20BA-CV03309, in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri
Final Hearing
02/03/2025
Settlement Website
MUHealthCareSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Bumbales v. Curators of UM
c/o Epiq
PO Box 3710
Portland, OR 97208-3710
info@MUHealthCareSettlement.com
(888) 625-4386
Class Counsel
Bradford B Lear
Todd C Werts
LEARN WERTS LLP
Defense Counsel
Jena Valdetero
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP [GN]
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ramey Due Jan. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramey v. Molina Healthcare
Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768 (W.D. Wash., Filed Aug. 24, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting joint motion
for extension of time:
Class certification motion deadline is Jan. 14, 2025. Deadline for
opposition to the plaintiff's motion to compel is Jan. 17, 2025.
Class Certification Opposition Deadline is Feb. 4, 2025. Class
Certification Reply Deadline is Feb. 18. 2024
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
Molina is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach,
California.[CC]
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lane Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Randal Lane, and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01610 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.
31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09545-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
MONSANTO COMPANY: Perry Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Steven Perry, Individually and as
Representative of the Estate of Mark Perry, deceased, and others
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01616 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. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09552-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
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rodriguez Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alfonso Rodriguez, and others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01617 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. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09559-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
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rollberg Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Judy Rollberg, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01618 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. 31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09558-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
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sage Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Karan Sage, and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01620 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.
31, 2024.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-09557-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
NATCAP INC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Baus Suit Due Sept. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVE BAUS, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. NATCAP INC., Case No.
2:24-cv-00227-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered a
Rule 16(B) and Rule 23(D)(2) Scheduling Order Regarding Class
Certification Motion as follows:
All Motions Related To Fact Discovery Due by March 25, 2025.
Deadline to complete fact discovery on class Certification is April
25, 2025. Plaintiff's disclosure of expert report(s) due by May 30,
2025. Deadline for motion for class certification is Sept. 26, 2025
and motions challenging class certification expert witness
testimony.
Natcap is a nature intelligence company that provides report and
act on impacts and dependencies on nature.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qOlHd at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONAL COLLECTION: Gurdack Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collection
Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Matthew Gurdack, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. National Collection
Systems, Inc. d/b/a National Credit Management, Case No.
2:24-cv-06916 (E.D. Pa., Dec. 31, 2024).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
National Collection Systems, Inc. --
https://www.nationalcreditsystems.com/ -- are a specialized
collection firm helping apartment owners and managers recover money
that is rightfully owed to them by former residents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
NATIONAL COURT: Palazzi Sues Over Inflation of Membership Dues
--------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY PALAZZI and CINDY JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL COURT REPORTERS
ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00077 (D.N.J., January 3,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged abuse of its powerful
position within the stenographic community to collect membership
dues through anticompetitive means. According to the complaint, in
addition to certification-related requirements, the National Court
Reporters Association (NCRA), as a trade association, exploits the
position it has, arising from state and court certified court
reporter (CCR) certification requirements, by forcing stenographers
to also become paying members of NCRA and maintain that paid
membership (regardless that they are certified and current on all
continuing education unit (CEU) obligations) or lose their
certification. As a result, NCRA has been able to inflate the price
it charges for membership in NCRA and has thereby earned inflated
revenues from membership dues that it would not otherwise have
earned, says the suit.
National Court Reporters Association is a professional organization
headquartered in Reston, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
55 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Telephone: (973) 639-9100
Facsimile: (973) 679-8656
Email: cayers@seegerweiss.com
- and -
Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
Anny M. Martin, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
- and -
Arthur Shingler, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
NATIONAL LASER: Cummane Sues Over Misleading Course Offerings
-------------------------------------------------------------
COLLEEN CUMMANE and GABRIELLE VAN ECK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL LASER
INSTITUTE, LLC; ON DEMAND HEALTH AND BEAUTY MARKETING LLC d/b/a
LOUOLOGY; and LOUIS SILBERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00036
(N.D. Ill., January 2, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Illinois Private Business and
Vocational Schools Act of 2012 and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, negligence, unjust
enrichment, and declaratory relief.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising and marketing of National Laser Institute's
course offerings. According to the complaint, the Defendants'
marketing and coursework purposely and intentionally fails to
disclose that the industry standard in Illinois is that those
performing cosmetic treatments utilizing powerful lasers have an
esthetician license. The Defendants' course offerings target
potential students seeking a career change and entry into the med
spa industry through the performance of laser treatments. The
Defendants misleadingly promise students that they will be able to
start their new career and earn more money immediately upon
receiving NLI's certification. The Plaintiffs and other Class
members suffered damages as a result of NLI's conduct. Had the
Plaintiffs and the Class known the truth that NLI was prohibited
from offering its courses or awarding certificates upon completion,
they would not have enrolled in NLI's courses.
National Laser Institute, LLC is a private, for-profit vocational
school in Oak Brook, Illinois.
On Demand Health and Beauty Marketing, LLC, doing business as
Louology, is a beauty marketing company based in Scottsdale,
Arizona. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura Luisi, Esq.
Jamie Holz, Esq.
LUISI HOLZ LAW
161 N. Clark, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 639-4478
Email: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com
HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Archer Sues Over Private Information Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ARCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC and UNIVERSAL
PICTURES HOME ENTERTAINMENT LLC d/b/a GRUV.COM, Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-10744 (C.D. Cal., December 13, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of
selling, renting, transmitting, and/or otherwise disclosing to
Meta, records containing the personal information of each of its
customers, along with detailed information revealing the titles and
subject matter of the videos and other audiovisual materials
purchased by each customer. Moreover, the Defendants disclosed and
continue to disclose their customers' private video information to
Meta without asking for, let alone obtaining, their consent to
these practices, says the suit.
Headquartered in Manhattan, NY, NBCUniversal Media, LLC is a media
and entertainment company that operates development, production,
acquisition, marketing, and distribution of filmed entertainment
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
535 Mission Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com
NCH HEALTHCARE: Court Denies McFalls' Bid to Strike Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kyle C. Dudek of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, denies the Plaintiff's
motion to strike declarations in the lawsuit titled LAUREN MCFALLS,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and
the Proposed Rule 23 Class, Plaintiff v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM,
INC. and NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.).
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Declarations
NCH Submitted with its Class Certification Opposition. Defendants
NCH Healthcare System, Inc. and Naples Community Hospital, Inc.
(collectively "NCH") have responded in opposition.
Plaintiff McFalls is a registered nurse. In May 2021, she accepted
a position in NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program ("Fellowship
Program"). In "consideration for the training" she would receive,
McFalls agreed to work at NCH for two years. She also agreed to pay
back the Fellowship Program fee of $5,000 if she did not complete
her two-year commitment.
Ms. McFalls left NCH after 11 months. So NCH deducted $477.90 from
her final paycheck and refused to pay out 35 hours of accrued paid
time off in the amount of $897.91. NCH then forwarded the
outstanding balance of the Fellowship Program fee to a debt
collector.
Ms. McFalls brought this suit to challenge the Fellowship Program
fee. She claims NCH represented that the training was worth at
least $5,000. But she believes the fee does not reflect the
training's value and is instead meant to prevent nurses from
leaving NCH. Because every nurse in the Fellowship Program agrees
to pay the same fee if they do not stay for at least two years, she
wants to certify a class action for her claims.
When responding to the class certification motion, NCH attached
declarations of eight putative class members, who attest that the
value of the training was as represented and they suffered no loss.
McFalls now moves to strike the declarations, arguing they are
responsive to discovery she served in November 2023 that sought all
"statements of witnesses or potential witnesses or persons
interviewed in connection with this lawsuit."
Ms. McFalls is troubled because NCH did not produce these
declarations, either initially or through a supplement, and yet it
relies on them as the primary evidence in support of its opposition
to class certification. She concludes that "NCH should not be
allowed to benefit from this gamesmanship and discovery failure."
In response, NCH provides a more complete picture of what happened.
When NCH responded to McFalls' discovery request last year, it had
not yet obtained the declarations. Rather, NCH began efforts to
obtain the declarations in March 2024, finishing by mid-April. The
Court then granted NCH's motion for judgment on the pleadings and
the case was closed.
Ms. McFalls moved for reconsideration and was successful. The case
was, thus, reopened in August. As for producing the declarations
after the case was reopened through a supplement, NCH falls on the
sword: "As the case reopened, given the length of the case closure
and the immediate focus on the case to class certification, counsel
for Defendants mistakenly forgot that the declarations gathered
months prior had not already been produced."
Since reopening, the discovery deadline has not been reset.
Instead, a briefing schedule for class certification was put in
place, and the Court will hold a status conference to discuss the
remaining deadlines.
Given the unique procedural history of this case, Judge Dudek says
it is debatable whether the declarations was disclosed "in a timely
manner" as required by Rule 26(e). But even assuming untimeliness,
the Court finds the delay harmless.
Even if McFalls was surprised by the declarations attached to NCH's
opposition brief, Judge Dudek points out that this was cured
because she had the opportunity to file a reply. Still, she opted
not to address the declarations in her reply nor ask for more time
to take further discovery.
Judge Dudek opines that allowing NCH to belatedly comply with Rule
26(e) will not interrupt these proceedings. There is plenty of time
for McFalls to pursue discovery related to the declarations if she
wishes. Finally, NCH offers a sufficient explanation for its
failure to follow Rule 26--the passage of time given the closure
and reopening and defense counsel's maternity leave.
At bottom, Judge Dudek finds NCH has established harmlessness, and
striking the declarations will only inhibit addressing the merits.
Given these circumstances, the Court denies McFalls' Motion to
Strike.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3vv4jmrw from PacerMonitor.com.
NEGATIVE INC: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. NEGATIVE, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-10026
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 31, 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://negativeunderwear.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 her
computer.
NEGATIVE, INC., operates the Negative Underwear online retail
store, as well as the Negative Underwear 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
NEW YORK LIFE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Linhart
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARBARA LINHART, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEW YORK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY CORPORATION;
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA; NYLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF ARIZONA; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No.
5:21-cv-01640-JWH-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb
entered an order regarding the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and appointment of class representative and class
counsel and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment:
1. NYLIAC's Summary Judgment Motion is granted.
2. Linhart's Class Certification Motion is denied.
The thrust of Linhart's breach of contract claim is that NYLIAC
failed to comply with the Statutes and that NYLIAC failed to pay
the benefit owed to Linhart. In view of the Court's conclusion
above—that NYLIAC did comply with the Statutes -- the Court
necessarily concludes that NYLIAC was not in breach of contract,
because the Policy lapsed. Accordingly, NYLIAC's Summary Judgment
Motion is granted with respect to this claim.
Because the Court concludes that Linhart's claims for relief must
be dismissed and that NYLIAC's Summary Judgment Motion must be
granted, the Court necessarily concludes that Linhart's Class
Certification Motion is denied.
Linhart filed her Complaint commencing this action in September
2021. In December 2021, Linhart filed her Amended Complaint, in
which she asserts two claims for relief: (1) breach of contract;
and (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.
New York Life is the third-largest life insurance company and the
largest mutual life insurance company in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order 0dated Dec. 26, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9RJmqL at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Class Cert Filing in Lewis Extended to Feb. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON
ORTEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered extending class certification
scheduling order:
Any motion for class certification shall be served by Feb. 7, 2025.
The plaintiffs' expert reports and disclosure of expert testimony
conforming to the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ.
P., shall be served by Feb. 7, 2025.
Any opposition shall be served by March 7 and any reply by April 4.
The parties shall supply Chambers with two (2) courtesy copies of
all motion papers, at the time they are served, by mailing or
delivering them to the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York.
Identification of rebuttal experts and disclosure of their expert
testimony must occur by March 7. All expert discovery must be
completed by March 28.
The parties shall confer regarding any interim dates. The dates for
a summary judgment motion, or in its absence, a pretrial order are
vacated.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 24, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rjr3DV at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Class Settlement in Miller Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHKEEM MILLER; JOSE
GUITY; TRAVIS BUTLER; ARIAN PERALTA; GARY GARCIA, JR.; BOBBY DEE
CRUZ, and ISAIAH MUHAMMAD, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CYNTHIA BRANN;
TIMOTHY FARRELL; HAZEL JENNINGS; and BRENDA COOKE, Case No.
1:21-cv-02616-PKC-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel
entered an order granting final approval of the class action
settlement:
This action was commenced on March 25, 2021, against City of New
York.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs brought claims under section 1983
alleging that the Defendants has a policy or practice of placing
"problematic" pretrial detainees in solitary confinement at a
portion of the West Facility or isolation confinement on the second
and third floors of the North Infirmary Command ("NIC") of Riker's
Island or the South facility of the Manhattan Detention Complex (9
South).
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rxT2dR at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Loses Reconsideration Bid on Partial OK of Class Cert
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA W., et al., v. THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05273-KMW-SLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kimba Wood entered an order denying City
of New York's motion for reconsideration of the Court's partial
grant of class certification, certifying a class of children who
are now, or will be, in the foster care custody of
the Commissioner of ACS [the New York City Administration for
Children's Services.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at ECF No.
585. As ordered by the Court on Dec. 6, 2024, the parties shall
submit to the Court a proposed discovery schedule by Jan. 10, 2025.
The Defendant's arguments fail to meet the strict standard for
reconsideration. The Defendant does not identify any intervening
change in law or controlling decisions or data that the Court did
not already consider.
The Defendant instead reiterates arguments about updated policies
and procedures that the Court explicitly considered before it
issued its Opinion & Order. The Defendant fails to explain why
these updated policies and procedures would alter the conclusion
reached by the Court as to commonality and typicality.
The Defendant also contends that the Court used a more lenient
standard than "preponderance of the evidence" when evaluating
Plaintiffs' evidence.
As the Court stated in its Opinion & Order, it assessed the
parties' competing evidence and granted partial class certification
only after finding that Plaintiffs had affirmatively shown, by a
preponderance of the evidence, each of the four prerequisites to
class certification.
The Court declines to modify its original holding.
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 18, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PIPl51 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEWREZ LLC: Removes Sellers Suit to District of Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of DAVID SELLERS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ LLC
d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of the State of Maryland,
County of Montgomery (Case No. C-15-CV-24-005447) to the U.S.
District Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland on Jan. 3, 2024.
The clerk of court for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00035-LKG. The case is assigned
to Judge J. Campbell Barker.
Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing provides mortgage
loan servicing for institutional clients investing in portfolios of
non-performing, re-performing and sub-performing residential
mortgage loans. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Melissa O. Martinez, Esq.
Nicholas B. Jordan, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
500 East Pratt Street, Suite 1000
Baltimore, MD 21202-3169
Telephone: (410) 659-4400
Facsimile: (410) 659-4482
Email: mmartinez@mcguirewoods.com
njordan@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
Gateway Plaza
800 East Canal Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 775-7745
Facsimile: (804) 698-2018 Fax
Email: bpumphrey@mcguirewoods.com
NORI INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Crumwell Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE CRUMWELL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. NORI, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-09732 (S.D.N.Y., December 17, 2024), arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Plaintiff Crumwell claims that the Defendant has violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Nori, Inc. operates the Nori online interactive website,
https://nori.co/, which offers steam iron and fabric shaver
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
NOVO NORDISK: Court Narrows Claims in Chaires Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAIRES, et al., v. NOVO
NORDISK INC., et al. (RE: INSULIN PRICING LITIGATION), Case No.
2:17-cv-00699-BRM-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Brian Martinotti
entered an order that the Defendants' motion to strike is denied
and Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part.
While the Court agrees that allowing the Plaintiffs' amendments in
their entirety would be prejudicial to Defendants at this stage in
litigation, the striking of Plaintiffs' entire Fourth Amended
Complaint -- though a close call -- is not necessary.
Instead of striking the Fourth Amended Complaint, the Court will
grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' federal RICO
claims with prejudice. The Court finds that Defendants have not
demonstrated any such conflict or impossibility preemption.
The Defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' deception claims
is denied.
The action arises out of the Plaintiffs' challenge to Defendants'
allegedly unfair and unconscionable pricing scheme for their analog
insulin products.
The Plaintiffs are analog insulin consumers who filed the Fourth
Amended Complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, divided into three classes:
Nationwide mail-order RICO class:
"All individual persons in the United States and its territories
who, in a mail order purchase, paid any portion of the purchase
price to acquire a prescription of Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen,
Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen 50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25,
Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog Mix 75/25, Basaglar KwikpenFiasp, Fiasp
Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog Flexpen,
Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30, Tresiba, Lantus,
Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar from CVS
Caremark, OptumRx, and/or Express Scripts, Inc. at a price
determined by reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale
Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other
than resale."
Nationwide consumer fraud deception class under New Jersey law:
"All individual persons in the United States and its territories
who paid any portion of the purchase price to acquire a
prescription of Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen,
Humalog Kwikpen 50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50,
Humalog Mix 75/25, Basaglar KwikpenFiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir,
Levemir Flextouch, Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix
70/30, Novolog Mix 70/30, Tresiba, Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo
Solostar, or Toujeo Maxsolostar[] at a price determined by
reference to a list price, AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or
WAC (Wholesale Acquisition Price) for purposes other than resale."
Single-state consumer fraud deception damages classes
"All individual persons in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,
Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming who
paid any portion of the purchase price for any prescription of
Humalog, Humalog Jr. Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen, Humalog Kwikpen
50/50, Humalog Kwikpen 75/25, Humalog Mix 50/50, Humalog Mix 75/25,
Basaglar KwikpenFiasp, Fiasp Flextouch, Levemir, Levemir Flextouch,
Novolog, Novolog Flexpen, Novolog Flexpen Mix 70/30, Novolog Mix
70/30, Tresiba, Lantus, Lantus Solostar, Toujeo Solostar, or Toujeo
Maxsolostar[] at a price determined by reference to a list price,
AWP (Average Wholesale Price), and/or WAC (Wholesale Acquisition
Price) for purposes other than resale."
Novo Nordisk manufactures and sells prescription medications,
including analog insulin products.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Dec. 31, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GMSv7P at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCEANA USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Tucker Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OCEANA USA INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00082 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://lululunusa.com/, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Oceana USA Inc. specializes in Japanese beauty and healthcare
products for the US market. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
OMAHA, NB: Residents Sue Over Bedbugs Infestations
--------------------------------------------------
Cindy Gonzalez of Nebraska Examiner reports that advocates are
hoping that back-to-back punches -- a class action lawsuit filed
Monday, January 6, 2025, and another push for a change in state law
-- will provide relief to Omaha public housing residents suffering
from bedbugs.
The complaint filed in Douglas County District Court seeks good
riddance, at the expense of the Omaha Housing Authority, to the
blood-sucking "hitchhiker" parasites, as well as refund on rent for
as many as 1,700 low-income residents of OHA apartment towers.
The state legislation Sen. Terrell McKinney plans to introduce this
month would put the weight of Nebraska law behind the bug
eradication effort that targets the state's largest public housing
authority.
"We've got to hit them from all sides," said McKinney.
Welts, sleeplessness, fear
His bill, among other things, would mandate disclosure of bedbugs
to potential residents and notify other tenants of infestations.
McKinney said previous state legislation has strengthened some
public housing tenant protections, but not pertaining to bedbugs.
The North Omaha lawmaker was among several area elected officials,
including outgoing State Sen. Justin Wayne and newly elected Ashlei
Spivey, who attended the January 6 news conference that also drew
community leaders and OHA residents.
Wayne, also a lawyer, is representing the OHA plaintiffs, along
with Iowa attorneys Steve Wandro and Jeffrey Lipman, who have
handled bedbug class action cases involving high rise structures
elsewhere across the nation.
Their 38-page lawsuit, which includes photos of bedbugs and scabby
tenant arms, alleges the infestation dates back to 2016. It claims
residents of multiple OHA towers suffered physical and emotional
injuries including painful welts, sleeplessness, fear and isolation
due to "sustained "intense, insidious infestation."
Few insects are more difficult to abide than bedbugs that travel
through walls, pose health hazards and prefer to latch on to
sleeping persons, leaving nasty bites, said Lipman, who described
the OHA as having the worst case of bedbugs he has seen.
He said eradication will take millions of dollars. Keeping them
away, he said, likely will require permanent on-site crews.
Attorney Steven Wandro said that good riddance is possible with
proven treatment protocols and that "in this day and age there is
no reason," for people to suffer from bedbugs.
OHA heat treatment rooms
OHA chief executive officer Joanie Balk said she had not reviewed
the legal complaint. But she said the housing authority takes
treatment of all pests, including bedbugs, seriously. OHA employs
its own pest control team, which has recently expanded, and also
contracts with outside services.
The OHA -- whose board members are appointed by Omaha's mayor and
confirmed by the City Council -- uses practices endorsed by the
Douglas County Health Department and the U.S. Housing and Urban
Development, which is a major funding source to the public housing
agency and rent subsidy programs.
Overall, OHA helps provide housing and other services to more than
20,000 people whose income makes them eligible for government
assistance. Balk said the agency also has started to install heat
treatment rooms.
"The opportunity to heat treat belongings in an environment where
pests cannot further spread, in collaboration with unit preparation
and chemical treatments, will further enhance the ability to combat
the presence of bedbugs," Balk said.
Many factors affect the presence of bedbugs, she said, and any
response must be "multi-faceted.
OHA plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation as well as
aggressive remediation. The lawyers, who are asking for a jury
trial, said that public housing plaintiffs in similar cases have
been awarded a full rent return for a designated time period, even
though the rent was subsidized by the federal government.
Bugs 'falling on my head'
Jane Bailey is among 17 tenants identified in the lawsuit who
assert they were not told their future residential building had
bedbugs and that their complaints were ignored. Lipman said that up
to 1,700 people could be represented.
Bailey moved into the OHA Underwood Tower in 2016 and said she was
"blessed" five years later to have been able to find a different
living arrangement with a neighboring housing authority. She
remains a plaintiff, saying she has ongoing ill effects.
"They were falling on my head," Bailey said of bedbugs in her OHA
apartment. She said that during the holidays, she'd have to meet
family at a casino or restaurant out of fear that if they came to
her apartment they'd leave with an unwanted guest.
Bailey said she had to enlist help from a social worker to help
with phobias. She said she remains anxious to hang her coat next to
other coats, fearing that a bug might crawl out.
"We helped everybody, and that meant we ended up with bedbugs on
us," said Bailey's friend, Deana Beedle, who is an OHA tenant.
Michael Coleman, also named as a plaintiff, said he moved into
Underwood Tower in the summer of 2018 with his wife and was not
informed that either the building or his apartment had a problem
with bedbugs.
He said he noticed the pests and complained, and that OHA has
sprayed "periodically."
Coleman said that while he's afraid to sleep, he won't move.
"It's the only place I can afford," he said. [GN]
PCB BATTLE: Fletcher Sues Over Time-Shaving Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PCB BATTLE CREEK LLC, a limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01322-JMB-RSK (W.D.
Mich., December 17, 2024) asserts claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Fletcher worked for Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee from approximately March 28, 2022 through March 19, 2024.
Allegedly, the Defendant maintained a corporate time-shaving
practice pursuant to which it shaved time from Plaintiff's
timesheets and paid him based on his start-of-shift time rather
than his clock-in time. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly
situated hourly employees were not paid for the time they spent
participating in Defendant's daily pre-shift meetings and/or
working before the start of their scheduled shifts, says the suit.
PCB Battle Creek LLC is engaged in the packaged foods manufacturing
business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
akarbal@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
PRN HEALTH: Uses Trap & Trace on Health Website, Mitchener Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY MITCHENER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRN HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, a
Wisconsin corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00013 (N.D. Cal., January 2, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Trap and Trace Law.
The case arises from the PRN Health Services' use of TikTok
Software's trap and trace technology on its website,
www.prnhealthservices.com, in order to capture the phone number,
email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of its
website visitors. The Defendant also did not obtain consent from
the Plaintiff or any of the Class members before deploying the trap
and trace technology to identify visitors of its website. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and
Class members are entitled to statutory damages, the suit says.
PRN Health Services, LLC is an operator of the website,
www.prnhealthservices.com, in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
Email: robert@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Tampons Lead Contamination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lyon of The Lyon Firm reports that the toxic exposure and
product recall lawyers at The Lyon Firm are reviewing current class
action claims that popular tampon brands, including Tampax, Kotex
and Playtex have been found contaminated with lead.
If you purchased these items or other tainted feminine products,
you may be eligible to take part in an ongoing class action lawsuit
for lead-tainted tampons, or file an individual complaint regarding
another contaminated consumer product.
Which Tampons are Contaminated with Lead?
Recent research discovered a serious health issue for women and
their personal health: lead contamination in Tampax, Kotex and
Playtex tampons. A published study found evidence of lead and other
heavy metals in personal hygiene products, raising serious concerns
about the safety of these items and associated lead poisoning risks
for individuals exposed to these toxins.
Two class action lawsuits, filed by consumers and plaintiffs in
California against Proctor & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, seek
compensation and stronger safety measures for all women's personal
hygiene products.
In one tampon class action lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that
Tampax Pearl tampons contain unsafe levels of lead, and accuses
Procter & Gamble of not disclosing the presence of lead in their
products. The lawsuit includes unfair and unlawful business
practice claims, false advertising, and violations of the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.
A separate tampon lawsuit alleges that the P&G unit This is L, Inc.
falsely claimed its tampons are "100% organic."
Understanding Tampon Lead Contamination
The study explains there are a few ways metals could get into
tampon products. The raw materials themselves, like cotton and
rayon, could be contaminated by toxins, while some metals may in
fact be added intentionally for odor control, pigment or as an
antibacterial additive.
In a study published in Environment International, researchers
reported that trace amounts of heavy metals, including lead, were
present in all of the tampons they tested. Experts said that even
in trace amounts of toxins can pose serious health risks,
particularly with chronic exposure and direct vaginal insertion,
allowing lead to enter the bloodstream without being metabolized
first by the liver. In this recent study, 14 popular feminine
hygiene brands were tested for potentially harmful metals like
cadmium, arsenic and lead.
Heavy metals are not the first contaminants found in female hygiene
products. Past studies discovered PFAS, phthalates, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in female menstrual products, including
tampons. In 2023, Thinx settled a lawsuit over whether its period
underwear exposed consumers to PFAS.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies tampons as
"medical devices," yet curiously the agency does not require tampon
producers to test their products for contaminants.
Some metals found in tampons like copper, calcium, iron and zinc
are considered safe. Exposure to some heavy metals, however, can
cause serious health issues, including damage to the
cardiovascular, nervous and endocrine systems; damage to the liver,
kidneys and brain; and possibly increased the risk of dementia and
cancer.
Contact a physician and an attorney if you experience any allergic
reaction, discomfort, pain, or other signs of toxic shock, or
tampon lead contamination symptoms.
Under product liability law, consumers may file defective product
claims for the following:
Design Defects: Flaws in the product's design that make it unsafe
Manufacturing Defects: Errors during production leading to
contamination or health hazards
Marketing Defects: Failing to provide timely safety warnings, or
not disclosing the presence of toxic heavy metals
Call an experienced product recall and toxic tort lawyer to discuss
filing a complaint when you discover any consumer product may be
contaminated with toxins. We aim to make the marketplace safer,
hold negligent corporations accountable for trade violations, and
we seek compensation for plaintiffs nationwide. [GN]
QUALTEK WIRELESS: Dodge Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSHUA DODGE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUALTEK WIRELESS LLC & DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 24CV021086, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on January 3, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-00043-DAD-AC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of
California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law including failure
to pay for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime, failure to
authorize and permit and/or make available meal and rest periods,
failure to provide timely and accurate itemized wage statements,
waiting time penalties, and unfair business practices.
QualTek Wireless LLC is a construction company doing business in
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel V. Kitzes, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 598-4150
Facsimile: (310) 556-9828
REMARKABLE FOODS: Underpays Restaurant Managers, Roman Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS ROMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REMARKABLE FOODS HOSPITALITY LLC, dba WONDER
RESTAURANTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00087 (S.D.N.Y., January
3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours
compensation, failure to reimburse uniform maintenance pay, failure
to provide proper wage notices, and failure to pay timely wages.
The Plaintiff has worked as an Assistant Manager for the
Defendant's restaurants known as Wonder from on or about March 21,
2024, through present.
Remarkable Foods Hospitality LLC, doing business as Wonder
Restaurants, is a restaurant company, doing business in the State
of New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
VALIANT LAW
2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 205
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 730-2422
Facsimile: (909) 677-2290
Email: jjj@valiantlaw.com
- and -
Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
Email: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Revance
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Revance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RVNC)
securities between February 29, 2024 and December 6, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Revance investors have until March
4, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN REVANCE THERAPEUTICS,
INC. (RVNC), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT.
What Happened?
On September 23, 2024, Revance disclosed in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it had "received a notice
to remedy alleged material breaches, including breaches of the
maximum levels of buffer stock and required efforts to promote and
sell Teoxane products, under the Company's exclusive distribution
agreement with Teoxane SA." Revance further revealed that, "[i]n
light of these discussions," a previously announced tender offer by
Crown Laboratories, Inc. ("Crown") had been delayed until at least
October 4, 2024.
On this news, Revance's stock price fell $0.44, or 7.7%, to close
at $5.37 per share on September 23, 2024, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on December 9, 2024, Revance disclosed that it had amended
its merger agreement with Crown, and that Crown would shortly
commence a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of
Revance's common stock for $3.10 per share in cash – a drop of
over 50% in the purchase price.
On this news, Revance's stock price fell $0.79, or 20.7%, to close
at $3.03 per share on December 9, 2024, thereby injuring investors
further.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Revance was in material breach of the Distribution
Agreement; (2) the foregoing subjected the Company to an increased
risk of litigation, as well as monetary and reputational harm; (3)
all the foregoing increased the risk that the Tender Offer would be
delayed and/or amended; and (4) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you purchased Revance securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact us:
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
Visit our website at: www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Revance
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Revance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RVNC). The
lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about Revance's business, operations, and prospects,
including allegations that: (i) Revance was in material breach of
its distribution agreement with Teoxane SA; (ii) the foregoing
subjected Revance to an increased risk of litigation, as well as
monetary and reputational harm; and (iii) all the foregoing
increased the risk that Crown Laboratories, Inc.'s tender offer to
acquire all outstanding shares of the Company's common stock would
be delayed and/or amended.
If you bought shares of Revance between February 29, 2024 and
December 6, 2024, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by
toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/revance-therapeutics/ to learn
more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is March 4, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
ROOK COFFEE: Gaspa Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA GASPA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Rook Coffee Roasters Holdings, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-11115 (D.N.J., December 13, 2024)
arises from Defendant's failure to make its digital properties
accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the
effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
During the Plaintiff's visits to the website, on December 6, 2024,
she made an attempt to purchase a pack of mild-roasted coffee.
However, due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a
manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the
Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the
website and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the said
product.
Based in Long Branch, NJ, Rook Coffee Roasters Holdings, LLC
operates the Rookcoffee.com online retail store. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
Flushing, NY, 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
RUMBLE INC: Tucker Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RUMBLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00023 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://rumble.store/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that
contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing
alt-text.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Rumble Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services,
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
RWPN LLC: S.C. Trade Breach Suit Removed to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled S.C., by her parent and next friend KARRIECONLEY;
K.C., by her parent and next friend KARRIE CONLEY; and R.H., by his
parent and next friend MICHELE HUDAK, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. LUCY CALKINS; IRENE FOUNTAS; GAY
SU PINNELL; RWPN, LLC, d/b/a THE READING & WRITING PROJECT AT
MOSSFLOWER, LLC; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF TEACHERS COLLEGE, COLUMBIA
UNIVERSITY; FOUNTAS AND PINNELL, LLC; GREENWOOD PUBLISHING GROUP,
LLC, d/b/a HEINEMANN PUBLISHING; and HMH EDUCATION CO., Case No.
CIVSB2433743, was removed from the Superior Court of the
Massachusetts Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 2, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-10007 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged engagement in unfair
and deceptive practices in Massachusetts in the conduct of trade or
commerce in violation of General Law and breach of their duties to
exercise reasonable care or competence by falsely and deceptively
marketing their literacy products.
RWPN, LLC, d/b/a The Reading & Writing Project at Mossflower, LLC,
is a limited liability company with its principal place of business
in Connecticut.
Fountas and Pinnell, LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Ohio.
Greenwood Publishing Group, LLC, d/b/a Heinemann Publishing, is a
publishing company with its principal place of business in New
Hampshire.
HMH Education Co. is an adaptive learning company in Massachusetts.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Esq.
Andy O'Laughlin, Esq.
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
Email: Felicia.Ellsworth@wilmerhale.com
Andy.Olaughlin@wilmerhale.com
- and -
David Thomas, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1 International Pl., #2000
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 310-6040
Facsimile: (617) 897-0940
Email: David.Thomas@gtlaw.com
- and -
Javier F. Flores, Esq.
DINSMORE & SHOL, LLP
101 Arch Street, Suite 1800
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (857) 305-6383
Facsimile: (857) 305-6401
Email: Javier.Flores@dinsmore.com
SAMARIA BEAUTY: Fails to Properly Pay Employees, Perez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA G. PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAMARIA BEAUTY SUPPLY INC., Defendant, Case
No. 0:25-cv-60008-MD (S.D. Fla., January 3, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and failure
to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a non-exempt, full-time
employee from approximately February 15, 2021, to September 15,
2021, and from approximately February 15, 2022, to August 22,
2023.
Samaria Beauty Supply Inc. is a supplier of hair care, skin care,
and cosmetic products, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
SHUTTERSTOCK INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Getty Images
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating Shutterstock, Inc. (NYSE: SSTK), relating to the
proposed merger with Getty Images Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Shutterstock stockholders can elect to receive
$28.8487 per share in cash, 13.67237 shares of Getty Images, or a
mixed consideration of 9.17 shares of Getty Images plus $9.50 in
cash per share. Shutterstock stockholders will own approximately
45.3% of the combined company.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/shutterstock-inc-sstk/. 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 the above listed company 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 [GN]
SOLIANT HEALTH: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Stamps Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MYRA STAMPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOLIANT HEALTH, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00010-SEG (N.D. Ga., January 2, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach
of express/implied contractual duty, unjust enrichment, and
invasion of privacy.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated customers stored within its email account
systems following a data breach on or around June 25, 2024. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
Soliant Health, LLC is a healthcare staffing company based in
Peachtree Corners, Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph B. Alonso, Esq.
Daniel H. Wirth, Esq.
ALONSO & WIRTH
1708 Peachtree St., Ste. 303
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (678) 928-4509
Facsimile: (678) 490-3668
Email: jalonso@alonsowirth.com
dwirth@alonsowirth.com
- and -
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 -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
SUGAR FACTORY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alexander Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY ALEXANDER; and MEHKI ALEXANDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUGAR FACTORY, LLC;
and SFX HOUSTON 88 LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00009 (S.D.
Tex., Jan. 2, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers.
Defendant Sugar Factory, LLC owns and operates an international
chain of Sugar Factory restaurants, including the Sugar Factory
restaurant located at Houston, TX 77056. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matt Bachop, Esq.
DEATS, DURST & OWEN, P.L.L.C.
8140 N Mopac Expy. Suite 4-250
Austin, TX 78759
Telephone: (512) 474-6200
Facsimile: (512) 474-7896
Email: mbachop@ddollaw.com
- and -
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
Sarah M. Block, Esq.
Sophia Serrao, Esq.
McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
Email: mae@mselaborlaw.com
smb@mselaborlaw.com
ss@mselaborlaw.com
SYNAPTIC INC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Goodman Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
DE’SEAN GOODMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SYNAPTIC, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02170-PAG (N.D. Ohio, December 13, 2024) challenges
Defendant's policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Amendment.
Plaintiff Goodman worked as a W-2 employee of Defendant as a
non-exempt, hourly salesperson from August 2023 through November
2024. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment, the Defendant
allegedly failed to pay proper minimum wages and overtime
compensation to Plaintiff. Among other things, the Defendant
required Plaintiff to incur and pay for job-related expenses but
Defendant failed to keep track of these expenses or to reimburse
them. As a result of these pay practices, the Plaintiff was
deprived of legally mandated minimum wages and overtime pay, says
the suit.
Synaptic, Inc. is a marketing agency headquartered in Independence,
OH. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
Kathleen R. Harris, Esq.
4106 Bridge Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 222-2222
Facsimile: (888) 604-9299
E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com
katie@tittlelawfirm.com
TBD COMMUNICATIONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Foltz Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH FOLTZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TDB COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Kansas corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02581 (D. Kan., December 17, 2024)
arises out of Defendant's systematic failure to compensate its
employees for all time worked in willful violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff and the putative collective members consist of
current and former call center agents or similar positions, who
were compensated on an hourly basis. Throughout their employment
with Defendant, the Plaintiff and other call center agents were
pressured to work substantial amounts of uncompensated,
off-the-clock time as part of their job duties, says the suit.
Headquartered in Washington, DC, TDB Communications, Inc. offers
call center management, technology, customer service, data
analysis, and performance-based solutions to call centers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul D. Snyder, Esq.
SNYDER LAW FIRM, LLC
10955 Lowell Ave., Suite 710
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 685-3900
E-mail: psnyder@snyderlawfirmllc.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Albert J. Asciutto, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
aasciutto@sommerspc.com
TREEHOUSE FOODS: $1.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on March 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
SCOTT WELLS and CITY OF ANN ARBOR EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Derivatively on Behalf of TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Plaintiffs, vs.
SAM K. REED, DENNIS F. RIORDAN, and CHRISTOPHER D. SLIVA,
Defendants, -and- TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Nominal Defendant
Case Nos. 2016 CH 16359 and 2019 CH 06753
Honorable Neil H. Cohen
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF STOCKHOLDER ACTION
TO: ALL RECORD AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC.
("TREEHOUSE") COMMON STOCK AS OF DECEMBER 9, 2024, EXCLUDING THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS OF TREEHOUSE,
MEMBERS OF THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILIES, AND ANY ENTITY IN WHICH
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS HAVE OR HAD A CONTROLLING INTEREST ("CURRENT
TREEHOUSE STOCKHOLDERS").
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. THIS NOTICE
RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF STOCKHOLDER
DERIVATIVE LITIGATION AND CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING
YOUR RIGHTS.
IF THE COURT APPROVES THE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION,
CURRENT STOCKHOLDERS OF TREEHOUSE WILL BE FOREVER BARRED FROM
CONTESTING THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FROM
PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS. THIS ACTION IS NOT A "CLASS ACTION."
THUS, THERE IS NO COMMON FUND UPON WHICH YOU CAN MAKE A CLAIM FOR A
MONETARY PAYMENT.
THE COURT HAS MADE NO FINDINGS OR DETERMINATIONS RESPECTING THE
MERITS OF THE ACTION. THE RECITATION OF THE BACKGROUND AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE SETTLEMENT CONTAINED HEREIN DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT. IT IS BASED ON
REPRESENTATIONS MADE TO THE COURT BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order from the Honorable
Neil H. Cohen, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Richard J.
Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St., Chicago, Illinois 60602 (the
"Court"), that a proposed settlement agreement has been reached
among (i) Plaintiffs,1 on behalf of themselves and derivatively on
behalf of nominal defendant TreeHouse; (ii) and defendants Sam K.
Reed, Dennis F. Riordan, and Christopher D. Sliva (collectively,
the "Individual Defendants") in connection with the above-captioned
stockholder derivative action (the "Action").
Plaintiffs filed the Action derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse to
remedy the alleged harm caused to the Company by the Individual
Defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties and other
alleged misconduct. The proposed Settlement, if approved by the
Court, would fully, finally and forever resolve the Action on the
terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")
and summarized in this Notice, including the dismissal of the
Action with prejudice.
As explained below, a Settlement Hearing will be held before the
Court on March 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., via Zoom, before the
Honorable Neil H. Cohen of the Circuit Court of Cook County in
Courtroom 2308 at the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington
St., Chicago, Illinois 60602,2 to determine (i) whether the terms
and conditions of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation are
fair, reasonable, and adequate to TreeHouse and Current TreeHouse
Stockholders and should be approved by the Court;3 (ii) whether the
[Proposed] Final Judgment and Order approving the Settlement,
substantially in the form of Exhibit C attached to the Stipulation,
should be entered, dismissing the Action with prejudice and
releasing and enjoining the prosecution of any and all Released
Claims; and (iii) whether the separately negotiated Fee and Expense
Amount to Plaintiffs' Counsel and any Service Awards to Plaintiffs
to be paid therefrom, should be approved. At the Settlement
Hearing, the Court may also hear or consider such other matters as
the Court may deem necessary and appropriate.
You have the right to object to the Settlement, the Fee and Expense
Amount, and the Service Awards in the manner provided herein. If
you fail to object in the manner provided herein at least fourteen
(14) days prior to the Settlement Hearing, you will be deemed to
have waived your objections and will forever be foreclosed from
making any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy
of the Settlement or the Fee and Expense Amount, including any
Service Awards, as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court, but will be forever bound by the Final Order
and Judgment to be entered, the dismissal of the Action with
prejudice, and any and all of the releases set forth in the
Stipulation.
This Notice is not intended to be and should not be construed as an
expression of any opinion by the Court with respect to the merits
of the claims made in the Action; this Notice is merely to advise
you of the proposed Settlement and of your rights as a Current
TreeHouse Stockholder.
I.BACKGROUND
A.Procedural History of the Consolidated Action
Plaintiff Wells filed the action with the case number 2016 CH 16359
(the "Wells Action") on December 19, 2016, in the Chancery Division
of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties and other violations of law by certain current and
former officers and directors of the Company.
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Ann Arbor filed the action with the case
number 2019 CH 06753 (the "Ann Arbor Action") in the Chancery
Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On August
13, 2019, the Court consolidated the Wells and Ann Arbor Actions
(the "Consolidated Action").
Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Verified Shareholder Derivative
Complaint (the "Consolidated First Complaint") on February 28,
2022, alleging claims for contribution and indemnification, breach
of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against Defendants. On April 14, 2022, Defendants moved to dismiss
the Consolidated First Complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615. On
July 25, 2022, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Shareholder
Derivative Complaint (the "Consolidated Amended Complaint") on
August 26, 2022, again alleging claims for contribution and
indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty against Defendants. On September 13, 2022,
Defendants moved to strike the Consolidated Amended Complaint on
the ground that Plaintiffs had not properly sought leave to amend.
On November 7, 2022, following full briefing, the Court denied
Defendants' Motion to Strike. On December 7, 2022, Defendants moved
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS
5/2-615. On March 15, 2023, following full briefing and oral
argument, the Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with
prejudice.
On March 16, 2023, Plaintiffs appealed. On March 22, 2024, the
First District of the Appellate Court of Illinois (the "Appellate
Court") issued an opinion reversing the Court's Order on the Motion
to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, reinstating the
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and remanding the case to the
Circuit Court for further proceedings. The First District's mandate
was issued on May 8, 2024. On August 2, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to
reinstate the Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Court granted
that Motion to Reinstate on August 26, 2024.
On September 6, 2024, TreeHouse filed a Motion for Leave to Dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint under 735 ILCS 5/2-619, which
the Individual Defendants joined. On September 23, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed an Opposition to the Motion for Leave. The Parties
subsequently entered into a term sheet reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle this Consolidated Action. Accordingly, on
October 1, 2024, the Court entered a Stipulation and Agreed Order,
pursuant to which Defendants withdrew their Motion for Leave
without prejudice, all proceedings were stayed pending the
submission of settlement approval papers.
B.The Securities Class Action
A federal securities action, captioned Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al., Case No.:
16-CV-10632 (N.D. Ill.) ("Securities Class Action"), was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging the Company and several of its officers violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule l0b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 13, 2021, the
parties in the Securities Class Action entered into a stipulation
of settlement that provided for a $27 million payment to the
settlement class. The full amount of the settlement in the
Securities Class Action was funded with proceeds from TreeHouse's
directors and officers' insurance, with no monetary outlay by the
Company (or the Individual Defendants). On November 17, 2021, the
court entered a Final Order and Judgment, approving of the
settlement.
C.The Settlement of the Action and Mediation Efforts
In 2021, the parties in the Securities Class Action participated in
a formal mediation session and reached a resolution. Following the
settlement, the Parties in this Action engaged in
mediator-facilitated discussions regarding a potential resolution,
but no settlement was reached at that time.
After the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court's ruling on
the Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, the
Parties agreed to seek the aid of an experienced mediator, the
Honorable William J. Cahill (Ret.) of JAMS (the "Mediator"), to
assist the Parties in endeavoring again to explore a potential
resolution of the Action. In advance of the mediation, the Parties
discussed a potential settlement framework. On August 13, 2024, the
Parties to this Action participated in a mediation session but were
unable to agree on settlement terms at that time.
After mediation on August 13, 2024, the Parties continued
arm's-length settlement negotiations. After the Parties reached
agreement as to corporate governance reforms designed to address
Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties and to improve the
independence of the Board and the rigor of committee oversight of
core operations, the Parties commenced negotiations facilitated by
the Mediator regarding reasonable attorney's fees to be paid to
Plaintiffs' Counsel, subject to Board and Court approval, in
consideration of the benefits conferred upon TreeHouse by the
Settlement. Thereafter, the Parties memorialized the basic
Settlement terms and executed a Binding Settlement Term Sheet on
September 26, 2024 (the "Term Sheet").
The Parties are in agreement that a settlement on the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in this Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders. The Parties agree that the Settlement confers
substantial benefits to TreeHouse and its stockholders and that the
Action was a material factor in the substantial benefits achieved.
II.PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, PLAINTIFFS'
CLAIMS, AND THE BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that the claims asserted
in the Action have merit. However, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense, time, and
uncertainty inherent in the continued prosecution of Plaintiffs'
claims in the Action through trial and any subsequent appeal(s).
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have also taken into account the
uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation, especially in
complex actions such as the Action, as well as the difficulties and
delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
Counsel also are mindful of the inherent problems of proof of, and
possible defenses to, the claims asserted in the Action. Based on
their investigation and evaluation set forth in more detail infra,
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have determined that the
Settlement set forth in this Stipulation is in the best interests
of TreeHouse and its stockholders.
Plaintiffs' Counsel have conducted an extensive investigation,
including, inter alia: (i) reviewing TreeHouse's press releases,
public statements, SEC filings, and securities analysts' reports
and advisories about the Company; (ii) reviewing media reports
about the Company; (iii) researching the applicable law with
respect to the claims alleged in the Action and the potential
defenses thereto; (iv) preparing and filing derivative complaints
in the Action and sending the litigation demands; (v) reviewing and
analyzing relevant pleadings in the Securities Class Action, and
evaluating the merits of, and Defendants' liability in connection
with, the Securities Class Action and the Action; (vi) reviewing
the Company's existing corporate governance policies and preparing
an extensive settlement demand detailing proposed corporate
governance reforms to strengthen the Company's governance; (vii)
culling relevant and probative documents by running targeted
searches of nearly 33,000 documents produced in the Securities
Class Action by Defendants; (viii) participating in extensive
settlement discussions with Defendants' Counsel, including
attending an in-person mediation in San Fransisco, California; and
(ix) negotiating the Term Sheet and this Stipulation.
Based on Plaintiffs' Counsel's thorough review and analysis of the
relevant facts, allegations, defenses, and controlling legal
principles, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel submit that the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and in the best interests of TreeHouse and its
stockholders, and that the Settlement confers substantial benefits
on TreeHouse and its stockholders.
III.DEFENDANTS' DENIALS OF WRONGDOING AND LIABILITY
Each of the Defendants has expressly denied and continues to deny
all of the claims and contentions alleged, or which could have been
alleged, in the Action or similar such actions, including that
TreeHouse has suffered damage by or as a result of the conduct
alleged in the Action or similar such actions.
Nonetheless, in order to eliminate the burden, expense, and risks
inherent in the litigation, Defendants have concluded that it is
desirable that the Action be fully and finally settled in the
manner and upon the terms and conditions set forth in this
Settlement.
IV.THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
1.A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") shall be held before this
Court on March 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., via Zoom, before the
Honorable Neil H. Cohen of the Circuit Court of Cook County in
Courtroom 2308 at the Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington
St., Chicago, Illinois 60602,4 to determine whether the Settlement
of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to TreeHouse and its
stockholders and should be approved by the Court; whether the
[Proposed] Final Order and Judgment should be entered herein; and
whether to approve the separately negotiated Fee and Expense Amount
to Plaintiffs' Counsel and any Service Awards to Plaintiffs to be
paid therefrom.
2.At the Settlement Hearing, the Court may hear or consider such
other matters as the Court may deem necessary and appropriate. The
Court may adjourn the date of the Settlement Hearing without
further notice to Current TreeHouse Stockholders, and the
Settlement Hearing may be continued by the Court at the Settlement
Hearing, or at any adjourned session thereof, without further
notice. Further, the Court may decide to approve the Settlement
without a hearing and without further notice to TreeHouse
stockholders or move the Settlement Hearing to Zoom or another
similar virtual platform without further notice to TreeHouse
stockholders.
V.THE SETTLEMENT
The terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are set forth
fully in the Stipulation referenced above. As a part of the
proposed Settlement, Defendants shall cause to be paid $1,255,000
to a settlement fund (the "Settlement Fund"). In addition,
TreeHouse has agreed that within one hundred and twenty (120) days
of the issuance of an order approving the settlement of the Action,
TreeHouse will adopt certain corporate governance reforms
("Reforms"), which TreeHouse shall maintain for a period of not
less than four (4) years. The Parties agree that the litigation and
settlement efforts in the Action were a material factor in the
Company's decision to adopt, implement, and/or maintain Reforms,
and that the Reforms would not have been implemented at this time
and/or maintained but for settlement of the Action. The Parties
further agree that the Reforms confer substantial benefits on
TreeHouse and its stockholders, and that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Company and its
stockholders. TreeHouse further represents that prior to the
execution of this Stipulation, the Company's Board has passed a
resolution acknowledging that the independent non-defendant members
of the Board have unanimously approved the Settlement. The Reforms
include, inter alia: (i) enhancements to the Office of the General
Counsel; (ii) enhancements to the Disclosure Committee, including
the adoption and finalization of a formal written charter detailing
the Disclosure Committee's responsibilities; (iii) enhancements to
the Company's Confidential Whistleblower Program; (iv) the adoption
and finalization of a formal written charter detailing a
management-level Mergers & Acquisitions Working Group's
responsibilities; (v) enhancements to the Company's Director
Education Policy; and (vi) confirmation that the Securities Class
Action settlement was fully funded with proceeds from the Company's
Directors' & Officers' insurance, with no monetary outlay by the
Company.
VI.DISMISSAL AND RELEASES
In connection with the Court's approval of the Settlement, the
Parties will jointly request entry of the [Proposed] Final Order
and Judgment by the Court, dismissing with prejudice all claims
that Plaintiffs have alleged in the Action and any other Released
Claims. Upon the Effective Date, the Releasing Parties shall be
deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
and discharged the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims)
against the Released Persons and any and all claims arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with the institution, prosecution,
assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Action against the
Released Persons. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Defendants
shall be deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released,
relinquished, and discharged Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel
from all claims (including Unknown Claims), arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with the institution, prosecution,
assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Action or the Released
Claims. Nothing herein shall in any way impair or restrict the
rights of any Settling Party to enforce the terms of this
Stipulation.
VII.ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES
After negotiation of the principal terms of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' Counsel and counsel for Defendants, with the assistance
of the Mediator, separately negotiated at arm's-length the Fee and
Expense Amount that would be paid to Plaintiffs' Counsel. In
connection with a motion for final approval of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs' Counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses of $1,255,000. Defendants agree not to object to a request
by Plaintiffs' Counsel for a collective Fee and Expense Amount in
an amount not to exceed $1,255,000. Additionally, Plaintiffs'
Counsel may apply to the Court for reasonable Service Awards for
Plaintiffs, in recognition of the Plaintiffs' participation and
efforts in the prosecution of the Action, not to exceed $2,500.00
each, to be paid out of such Fee and Expense Amount awarded by the
Court, and neither the Company nor the Individual Defendants will
oppose any such awards consistent with such limits. Neither
TreeHouse, the Individual Defendants, nor Defendants' insurer(s)
shall be liable for any portion of any Incentive Amount.
VIII.THE RIGHT TO OBJECT AND/OR BE HEARD AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
Any Current TreeHouse Stockholder may object and/or appear and show
cause, if he, she, or it has any concern, why the Settlement should
not be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, why the Final
Order and Judgment should not be entered thereon, or why the Fee
and Expense Amount, including any Service Awards, should not be
finally approved; provided, however, unless otherwise ordered by
the Court, that no Current TreeHouse Stockholder shall be heard or
entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, or, if approved, the Final Order and Judgment to be
entered approving the Settlement, or the Fee and Expense Amount,
unless that stockholder has, at least fourteen (14) days prior to
the Settlement Hearing: (1) filed with the Clerk of the Court a
written objection to the Settlement setting forth: (i) a written
notice of objection with the person's name, address, and telephone
number, along with a representation as to whether such person
intends to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (ii) competent
evidence that such person currently holds shares of TreeHouse
common stock; (iii) a statement of objections to any matters before
the Court, the grounds therefor, or the reasons for such person
desiring to appear and be heard, as well as all documents or
writings such person desires the Court to consider; (iv) the
identities of any witnesses such person plans on calling at the
Settlement Hearing, along with a summary description of their
likely testimony; (v) proof of service; and (vi) the identities of
any cases (by name and court) in which the objector or his, her,
or its attorney, if any, has objected to a settlement in the last
three (3) years; and, (2) if a TreeHouse stockholder intends to and
requests to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, such stockholder
must have, in addition to the requirements of (1) above, filed with
the Clerk of the Court: (i) a written notice of such stockholder's
intention to appear at the Settlement Hearing; (ii) a statement
that indicates the basis for such appearance; (iii) the identities
of any witnesses the stockholder intends to call at the Settlement
Hearing and a statement as to the subjects of their testimony; and
(iv) any and all evidence that would be presented at the Settlement
Hearing. If a Current TreeHouse Stockholder files a written
objection and/or written notice of intent to appear, such
stockholder must also simultaneously serve copies of such notice,
proof, statement, and documentation, together with copies of any
other papers or briefs such stockholder files with the Court
(either by hand delivery or by first class mail) upon each of the
following:
Counsel for Plaintiff Scott Wells:
Marvin A. Miller
Lori A. Fanning
Miller Law LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Frank J. Johnson
Kristen O'Connor
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, California 92101
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
Johnson Fistel, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, Georgia 30064
Counsel for Plaintiff City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System:
Frank A. Richter
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 674-4674
Travis E. Downs, III
Benny C. Goodman, III
Erik W. Luedeke
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, California 92101
Counsel for Defendants Sam K. Reed, Dennis F. Riordan, and
Christopher D. Sliva:
James P. Smith III
Winston & Strawn LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10166
Matthew R. Carter
Elizabeth S. Deshaies
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Counsel for Nominal Defendant TreeHouse Foods, Inc.:
Nilofer Umar
David A. Gordon
Rebecca B. Shafer
Sidley Austin Llp
One South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Any Current TreeHouse Stockholder who does not make his, her, or
its objection in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have
waived such objection and shall forever be foreclosed from making
any objection to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the
Settlement or the Fee and Expense Amount, including any Service
Award, as set forth in the Stipulation, unless otherwise ordered by
the Court, but shall be forever bound by the Final Order and
Judgment to be entered, the dismissal of the Action with prejudice,
and any and all of the releases set forth in the Stipulation.
IX.CONDITIONS FOR SETTLEMENT
The Settlement is conditioned upon the occurrence of certain events
described in the Stipulation, which requires, among other things:
(a) the dismissal with prejudice of the Action without the award of
any damages, costs, fees, or the grant of any further relief,
except as provided in the Stipulation; (b) the entry by the Court
of a Final Order and Judgment that provides for the dismissal with
prejudice of the Action and granting the release of the Released
Claims; and (c) the Settlement becoming Final. If, for any reason,
any one of the conditions described in the Stipulation is not met
and/or the entry of the Final Order and Judgment does not occur,
the Stipulation shall be null and void and of no force and effect
and the Parties to the Stipulation will be restored to their
respective positions in the Action as of the date immediately
preceding the date of the Stipulation.
X.EXAMINATION OF PAPERS AND INQUIRIES
This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the Settlement.
For a more detailed statement of the matters involved in the
Action, reference is made to the Stipulation, which may be
inspected at the Clerk of the Court's Office for the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington St.,
Chicago, Illinois 60602 during business hours of each business day
or by visiting TreeHouse's website at
https://www.treehousefoods.com/investors/.
Any other inquiries regarding the Settlement or the Action should
be addressed in writing to the following:
Counsel for Plaintiff Scott Wells Frank A. Richter:
Marvin A. Miller
Lori A. Fanning
Miller Law LLC
115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Frank J. Johnson
Kristen O'Connor
Johnson Fistel, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 800
San Diego, California 92101
Michael I. Fistel, Jr.
Johnson Fistel, LLP
40 Powder Springs Street
Marietta, Georgia 30064
Counsel for Plaintiff City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 674-4674
Travis E. Downs, III
Benny C. Goodman, III
Erik W. Luedeke
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, California 92101
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
TRV MECHANICAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------
JORGE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRV MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS LLC d/b/a TRV
MECHANICAL HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING; VINCENT BADALI; and JOSE
CASTILLO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00063
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 3, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Plaintiff Perez was employed by the Defendants as a laborer.
RV Mechanical Contractors LLC d/b/a TRV Mechanical Heating & Air
Conditioning is a heating and air conditioning company with an
office located at Kenilworth, New Jersey, that services both the
New York and New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew C. Weiss, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
TWITTER INC: Court Narrows Claims in 2nd Amended Gerber Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore grants in part and denies in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' second
amended consolidated class action complaint in the lawsuit styled
STEPHEN GERBER, et al., Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00186-KAW (N.D. Cal.).
On June 12, 2024, Defendant X Corp., as successor in interest to
Twitter, Inc. (collectively "Twitter"), filed a motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' second amended consolidated class action complaint.
Upon review of the moving papers, the Court finds this matter
suitable for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil
Local Rule 7-1(b), and, for the reasons set forth in this Order,
grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
Twitter is a social media platform where users can post and engage
with short-form commentary, called "Tweets," which may include
text, images, or video. Each user must create a username and
display name, which are displayed publicly and associate the user
with their activity on the Twitter platform. Twitter invites users
to operate on its platform by using pseudonymous user and display
names, thereby allowing users to share and access information and
engage freely and anonymously.
While Twitter does not charge its users, it realizes billions of
dollars in annual revenues from the highly valuable data generated
by its users.
In order to sign up for an account on the Twitter platform, a
prospective user is required to: (1) enter into a User Agreement,
and (2) provide certain personal information, including name, email
address, phone number, and date of birth (collectively, "PII"). The
User Agreement, includes the Terms of Service ("TOS"), the Privacy
Policy, the Twitter Rules and Policies, and all incorporated
policies. As a result, prior to accessing the Twitter platform and
using Twitter's services, the Plaintiffs entered into the User
Agreement with Twitter, including the Privacy Policy, and provided
Twitter with their PII, as requested by Twitter and subject to
Twitter's representations set forth in the Privacy Policy. The
Privacy Policy states in detail how user data, including PII, will
be used and who will have access to that data.
From around June 2021 through January 2022, a defect in Twitter's
application programming interface ("API") allowed threat actors to
access and obtain PII associated with an estimated 200 million
Twitter users. It is unclear from publicly available information
whether the person(s) that took advantage of the API vulnerability
were external threat actors or had internal access at Twitter.
The information extracted through the API defect consists of
information associated with users' Twitter account (username,
display name, and account creation data), together with the users'
PII (email address and phone number). This data was offered for
sale, on more than one occasion, and/or leaked on the dark web
between August 2022 and January 2023, which is referred to as the
"Data Breach."
Twitter claims to have learned of the API defect from a third
party, rather than through its own diligence. And, after learning
of the defect, Twitter claims that it failed entirely to ascertain
that a threat actor may have taken advantage of the defect to
obtain access to user PII, and that extensive data obtained in a
Twitter hack was for sale on the dark web.
From around June 2021 through January 2022, a defect in Twitter's
application programming interface ("API") allowed threat actors to
access and obtain PII associated with an estimated 200 million
Twitter users. It is unclear from publicly available information
whether the person(s) that took advantage of the API vulnerability
were external threat actors or had internal access at Twitter.
The information extracted through the API defect consists of
information associated with users' Twitter account (username,
display name, and account creation data), together with the users'
PII (email address and phone number). This data was offered for
sale, on more than one occasion, and/or leaked on the dark web
between August 2022 and January 2023, which is referred to as the
"Data Breach."
Twitter claims to have learned of the API defect from a third
party, rather than through its own diligence. And, after learning
of the defect, Twitter claims that it failed entirely to ascertain
that a threat actor may have taken advantage of the defect to
obtain access to user PII, and that extensive data obtained in a
Twitter hack was for sale on the dark web.
The Plaintiffs allege that Twitter has taken no remedial action to
recover the data or mitigate the damage. They contend that the Data
Breach does not represent an isolated incident, but, rather, was
the foreseeable result of the reckless way that Twitter has chosen
to operate its business. As early as 2010, Twitter came under
scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") for its data
privacy failures, resulting in the entry of a 2011 consent order
(the "FTC Order"), which Twitter has continued to violate for more
than a decade, including with respect to the Data Breach.
The Plaintiffs allege that had they known that Twitter failed to
implement reasonable and adequate data security measures, they
would not have created Twitter accounts or would not have provided
their PII that was disclosed in the Data Breach to Twitter. They
further contend, among other things, that the Data
Breach has also caused specific and unique harm to Twitter's
impacted users that accepted its invitation to operate on its
platform anonymously through the use of pseudonyms, such as
Plaintiffs Gerber and Cohen, as the data available as a result
enables any person with access to it to readily ascertain the
identity of the person associated with a pseudonymous Twitter
account and their related activity on the platform.
On April 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the second amended
consolidated class action complaint alleging seven causes of action
for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligence,
gross negligence, unjust enrichment, violation of California Unfair
Competition Law, and declaratory judgment.
On June 12, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On July
29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On Sept. 8, 2024, the
Defendant filed a reply.
As a preliminary matter, the Defendant asks that the Court take
judicial notice of six documents in support of its motion to
dismiss that were not previously judicially noticed. The documents
are purportedly true and correct copies of: 1) A Twitter Help
Center page titled "About your email and phone number
discoverability privacy settings"; 2) A Twitter Help Center page
titled "How to upload and manage your contacts"; 3) A Twitter Help
Center page titled "About X' account suggestions," which is central
to the plausibility of the Plaintiffs' claims; 4) The Ernst & Young
Independet Assessor's Transmittal Letter on Twitter's Information
Security Program for the Period Sept. 13, 2019, to Sept. 12, 2021;
5) Order on Motion to Dismiss, Price v. Twitter, Inc., No.
22-cv-03173-SK (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2022), ECF No. 50; 6) Order on
Twitter's Demurrer to Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint and Motion
to Strike, Yeh v. Twitter, Inc., No. CGC-23-605100 (Cal. Sup. Ct.,
S.F. Cnty., May 31, 2024).
Additionally, the Defendant asks that the Court take judicial
notice of the eight documents it took notice of in the prior motion
to dismiss, including Twitter's Privacy Policy effective June 18,
2020, and Twitter's Privacy Policy effective Aug. 19, 2021.
The Plaintiffs oppose the request to judicial notice as it pertains
to the MacGregor Exhibit Nos. 1-4, because the Defendant is seeking
to establish the truth of the documents' contents to dispute the
well-pleaded facts in the complaint.
The Court denied the Defendant's prior request to judicially notice
Exhibits 1-3, which the Defendant acknowledges in its resubmission,
but Twitter claims that the exhibits are necessary to resolve
Twitter's argument that the Plaintiffs' negligence claims should be
dismissed for failure to plausibly plead proximate causation. The
Court disagrees and again denies the request for judicial notice as
to these three exhibits, because the Defendant is attempting to
challenge the Plaintiffs' well plead factual allegations on a
motion to dismiss, which is inherently improper.
Finally, in connection with its reply brief, the Defendant asks
that the Court take judicial notice of true and correct copies of
Twitter account sign-up pages. The Court denies this request,
because the exhibit should have been presented in conjunction with
the original motion.
Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendant's request for
judicial notice is granted in part and denied in part. The motion
is granted only as to the previously judicially noticed Broome
Exhibits and denied as to all of the MacGregor exhibits.
In its Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant argues that the first five
causes of action for breach of contract, breach of implied
contract, negligence, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment are
barred by the Terms of Service ("TOS") disclaimer and the
limitation of liability clauses.
The Court notes that, in connection with the first motion to
dismiss, the Defendant conceded that California law forbids
limiting liability for gross negligence, so it is unclear why the
Defendant would raise this argument here. Nonetheless, the Court
finds that the TOS cannot limit liability for gross negligence, so
the TOS can only potentially bar the other four causes of action.
The Plaintiffs allege that the As-Is Limitation and Liability
clauses are procedurally unconscionable, because they suffer from
both oppression and surprise. The Defendant argues that there is no
procedural unconscionability. In opposition, the Plaintiffs contend
that this ignores the fact that these terms were buried in lengthy
forms drafted by the party who wished to enforce them.
The Court agrees and finds that the TOS was at least somewhat
procedurally unconscionable.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is obligated by law to
maintain reasonable data security systems. Thus, in light of the
Plaintiffs' allegations of intentional conduct, the Court finds
that the TOS is unconscionable, such that the negligence and
contract claims are actionable.
The Court further finds that the clauses are unenforceable under
California Civil Code Section 1668. As was the case in Doe v. Meta
Platforms, Inc., the Defendant may move to limit the damages
available "on summary judgment or at another appropriate juncture,"
Judge Westmore opines.
The Court finds that the statements and blog posts are not
incorporated into the User Agreement, which requires that the first
cause of action for breach of contract be dismissed with
prejudice.
At the pleadings stage, Judge Westmore opines that promises to
protect users' PII are sufficient to establish the existence of an
implied contract, and Twitter's alleged failure to safeguard that
information is sufficient to state a claim for its breach.
Accordingly, the motion is denied as to the second cause of action
for breach of implied contract.
In the prior order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs
sufficiently alleged a claim for gross negligence and found that
the negligence claim would similarly survive should the Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege that the TOS is unconscionable. Since the TOS
is unenforceable for unconscionability reasons, the Court
incorporates the prior order as if set forth fully herein, and
denies the motion as to the negligence claims.
Judge Westmore finds the Plaintiffs' express breach of contract
claim for violations of the privacy policy is not actionable, which
does not satisfy the harm requirement for the UCL claim. Thus, the
motion is denied as to the sixth cause of action. The motion is
also denied as to the seventh cause of action.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion is granted with prejudice
as to the first cause of action for breach of contract. It is
denied in all other respects. The Defendant will file an answer
within 21 days.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dt5zuyt from PacerMonitor.com.
VANGUARD INVESTOR: Class Suit Settlement Hearing Set March 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit investors in Vanguard Investor Target Retirement
Funds:
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
TO: ALL INVESTORS IN VANGUARD INVESTOR TARGET RETIREMENT FUNDS
("INVESTOR TRFs") WHO: (1) RESIDE IN THE UNITED STATES; (2) HELD
SHARES OF THE INVESTOR TRFs IN TAXABLE ACCOUNTS OR IN
TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS WHERE CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFs
WERE DISTRIBUTED OUTSIDE OF THE TAX-ADVANTAGED ACCOUNTS; AND (3)
RECEIVED CAPITAL GAINS DISTRIBUTIONS FROM THE INVESTOR TRFs IN
2021.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a
hearing will be held on March 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable John F. Murphy, United States District Judge of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 3-B, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including
the sum of $40,000,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount plus
interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $985,000, and
service awards of no more than $20,000 to each Plaintiff, or
$240,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether this Action
should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement, dated November 6, 2024 ("Stipulation"). The Court
reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or
by other virtual means.
If you received capital gains distributions in 2021 from Investor
TRFs that were held in a Taxable Account or in a Tax-Advantaged
Account where capital gains from the Investor TRFs in 2021 were
distributed outside of the Tax-Advantaged Account, your rights may
be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to the 2021
capital gains distributions from those funds. If you need
assistance obtaining a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may write to, call,
or contact the Claims Administrator: Vanguard Chester Funds
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Toll-Free) (866) 274-4004;
(Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also
download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim online
at www.strategicclaims.net/vanguard. If you are a member of the
Settlement Class, to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim electronically or
postmarked no later than February 11, 2025 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to share in the
recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you
make a claim.
If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than February 18, 2025, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Stipulation.
Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than
February 18, 2025, by each of the following:
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, Room 2609
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Ave
40th Floor New York, NY 10016
Lead Counsel
Maeve L. O'Connor
DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
66 Hudson Boulevard
New York, NY 10001
Counsel for Vanguard Defendants
Daniel J. Kramer
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Counsel for Trustee Defendants
If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:
Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
philkim@rosenlegal.com
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2024
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA [GN]
VEJA NORTH: Faces Sumlin Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VEJA NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00027 (S.D.N.Y., January 2, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law, and declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.veja-store.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not
limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts,
inaccessible contact information, unclear labels for interactive
elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard
access for some interactive elements, empty links that contain no
text, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
Veja North America, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services, doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
Email: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
VERISK ANALYTICS: Dinitz et al. Sue Over Invasion of Privacy
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Dinitz et al., Plaintiffs v. Verisk Analytics, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-11157 (D.N.J., December 13, 2024) is a
class action lawsuit accusing the Defendant of making millions of
dollars at the expense of consumers' privacy.
Allegedly, General Motors LLC (GM) and OnStar LLC secretly funneled
that data, bundled with consumers' personally-identifying
information, to data brokers and consumer reporting agencies
including Verisk Analytics, Inc. The Plaintiffs are among the
millions of GM drivers whose driving data was collected and
exploited by Verisk without their full knowledge and consent, and
who have suffered significant invasions of privacy as a result.
The Plaintiffs assert that GM, Verisk, and other data brokers
duplicitously used OnStar's embedded technology to harvest, in real
time, the driving data on each of its drivers and sold that data
for profit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for
Defendant's unlawful conduct and assert claims for unjust
enrichment and for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Verisk Analytics, Inc. is a data analytics and risk assessment firm
headquartered in Jersey City, NJ. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
8160 Norton Parkway
Mentor, OH 44060
Telephone: (440) 953-8888
E-mail: madicello@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com
VERTIV CORP: Joint Bid to Extend Class Cert. Briefing Sched Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, v. VERTIV
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order denying joint stipulation to extend
class certification briefing schedule.
The parties have filed a stipulation requesting that the class
certification deadline be continued by two months, from Feb. 7,
2025, to April 7, 2025.
They cite "the upcoming holidays, with office closures and pre-
planned vacations" as cause for that extension.
Vacations and office closures fall far short of good cause. All
existing deadlines stand. The stipulation is denied.
Vertiv offers critical infrastructure technologies and rapidly
deployable customized solutions to meet specific business
requirements and needs.
Vertiv is an American multinational provider of critical
infrastructure and services for data centers, communication
networks, and commercial and industrial environments.
Headquartered in Westerville, Ohio, Vertiv has ~27,000 employees
worldwide,[3
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 30, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qIQgg at no extra
charge.[CC]
WAIAKEA INC: Stevenson Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waiakea, Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Michael Stevenson, Courtney Stevenson, on
behalf of themselves and al others similarly situated v. Waiakea,
Inc., Waiakea Bottling, Inc., Sam's West, Inc. doing business as:
Sam's Club, Case No. 3:24-cv-00294-WHR-CHG (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 8,
2024).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Waiakea -- https://waiakea.com/ -- is Naturally Alkaline Hawaiian
Volcanic Water from Hilo, Hawaii.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Henry Stachler, Esq.
Adam Maxwell Pitchel, Esq.
Matthew Thomas Tipton, Esq.
STACHLERHARMON
7810 McEwen Rd., Suite B
Dayton, OH 45402-9766
Phone: (937) 461-5901
Fax: (937) 461-5981
Email: matt@stachlerharmon.com
adam@stachlerharmon.com
matt@stachlerharmon.com
- and -
Benjamin D. Mooneyham, Esq.
GM LAW PC
1201 Walnut Street, Ste 20th Floor
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 471-7700
Fax: (816) 471-2221
Email: benm@gmlawpc.com
- and -
David B. Helms, Esq.
GM LAW PC
8000 Maryland Avenue, Suite 1060
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 504-4166
Fax: (816) 471-2221
Email: davidh@gmlawpc.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jonathan Travis Brollier, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
250 West Street, Suite 300-325
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 872-2412
Fax: (614) 633-1713
Email: JBrollier@ebglaw.com
- and -
Matthew R. Orr, Esq.
William Paul Cole
AMIN WASSERMAN GURNANI, LLP
515 South Flower Street, Ste 18th and 19th Floors
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 985-7206
Email: morr@awglaw.com
wcole@awglaw.com
WELLS FARGO: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Morris Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled ANTHONY
MORRIS, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 4:23-cv-03277-HSG (N.D. Cal.).
Before the Court is Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.'s motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's first amended class action
complaint. The Court finds the matter appropriate for disposition
without oral argument and deems it submitted.
On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff Anthony Morris filed this putative class
action against Wells Fargo & Company ("WF & Co."), Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. ("the Bank"), and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., in
San Francisco Superior Court. On June 30, 2023, the Defendants
removed the case to federal court.
The Plaintiff's lawsuit arises from Wells Fargo's failure to return
to its borrowers massive amounts of money Wells Fargo made after it
wrongly charged borrowers rate lock extension fees ("RLEFs") on the
borrowers' respective Wells Fargo mortgage applications. As
relevant here, RLEFs extend the period in which a quoted mortgage
interest rate is "locked in" against potential market fluctuations.
Whether the borrower or the lender is responsible for paying the
RLEF is a matter of "lender policy," but generally the party at
fault for the delay in closing bears the cost.
According to the Plaintiff, Wells Fargo had such a policy during
the relevant time period, which purported to charge borrowers for
RLEFs only when the borrowers were at fault for delays and to
absorb those fees itself when the fault was Wells Fargo's. During
the same period, the company allegedly also had a policy of
limiting their obligation to refund RLEFs to instances of its own
"willful misconduct."
In his initial complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that he applied for
a home mortgage with Wells Fargo in early 2005, and that Wells
Fargo knowingly misrepresented to him that he owed an RLEF in the
amount of $4,087.13, which he paid. The Plaintiff only discovered
the wrongdoing many years later in 2013 when, unprompted, Wells
Fargo mailed the Plaintiff a letter enclosing a purported refund
check for the RLEF he was wrongfully charged by Wells Fargo in
connection with his mortgage.
The Plaintiff's original complaint asserted state law claims for
unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and civil
theft on behalf of him and a nationwide class of borrowers, who
received RLEF refunds.
The three named Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety. The Court rejected their arguments that the Plaintiff's
claims were time-barred and that he had failed to sufficiently
state claims against WF & Co. The Plaintiff did not oppose the
Defendants' request to dismiss Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,
from the lawsuit, which the Court granted. But the Court ultimately
granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend on the basis that
the Plaintiff's allegations as to the exact nature of the
Defendants' misconduct were too vague and conclusory to state a
legally cognizable theory for his claims.
The Plaintiff timely filed an amended complaint against WF & Co.
and the Bank ("Defendants"). The amended complaint contains
additional facts about his loan transaction. He now alleges that at
the point he was conditionally approved for his loan with Wells
Fargo on April 14, 2005, he elected to "lock in" a particular
interest rate for a certain amount of time because he was
"confident in his ability to close the loan on time," and "[had]
not been informed of the consequences of the loan not closing
within the rate lock period." Then, at some point during the loan
closure process, Wells Fargo told him that his application lacked
certain documentation, and that he would be "required to (re)submit
these documents and pay an RLEF due to the resulting delay in
closing his loan."
The Plaintiff alleges that he agreed to submit the relevant
documentation to avoid an increased interest rate, even though he
believed he had previously submitted all the necessary documents,
and, as a result of the resubmission, the loan "did not close
during the rate lock period. Then, assuming Wells Fargo was
applying its stated policy fairly, and not wanting to delay the
loan closure even further, the Plaintiff subsequently paid an RLEF
of $4,087.13.
The amended complaint also includes facts summarizing a Wells Fargo
employee whistleblower's allegations that the Defendants
"orchestrated an effort to shift the cost of RLEFs onto borrowers
instead of the bank," which "involved blaming customers for delays
in the loan process and improperly charging them RLEFs."
Additionally, the Plaintiff restyled his unjust enrichment claim as
a quasi-contract claim and removed the civil theft claim.
The Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint with
prejudice.
The Defendants argue, among other things, that the Plaintiff's loan
documents, which they ask the Court to incorporate by reference
into his complaint, contradict his allegations and render them
facially implausible. The Plaintiff does not appear to challenge
the authenticity of the loan documents or oppose the Defendants'
request to incorporate them by reference.
Here, the Defendants are asking the Court to do precisely what
Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 1002 (9th Cir.
2018) prohibits. The Defendants primarily rely on a document titled
"Price Range Protection Confirmation/Rate Lock Agreement" ("the
Agreement") that the Plaintiff appears to have signed when his loan
closed on Aug. 2, 2005.
So while the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the
documents and what they say on their face under the incorporation
by reference doctrine, it does so subject to the limitations
discussed in this Order.
Aside from using the loan documents to challenge the Plaintiff's
complaint, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's amended
allegations are too vague and conclusory to survive the heightened
pleading standard under Rule 9(b).
Accepting these allegations as true and making all factual
inferences in the Plaintiff's favor, the Court finds that his
amended complaint meets the Rule 9(b) standard.
While the Court has some doubt as to whether the Plaintiff's theory
of misrepresentation will prove to be substantively meritorious, he
has cured the vagueness issue the Court previously identified such
that his allegations are sufficiently pled at this stage.
Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
this basis.
The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff's conclusory allegations
against Defendant WF & Co., made with zero factual support, are
insufficient as a matter of law. Judge Gilliam says the Defendants
may raise arguments about the merits of the Plaintiff's claims
against WF & Co. on summary judgment or at trial. The Court, thus,
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on this
basis.
The Defendants also reassert their contention that the Plaintiff's
claims are time-barred, this time arguing that the Plaintiff has
essentially pled himself out of court. According to the Defendants,
the Plaintiff's allegation in the amended complaint that he had
"submitted all necessary documents" as part of his loan application
amounts to an "admission" that he suspected the falsity of Wells
Fargo's statement that he was at fault for the paperwork issue when
the statement was made in 2005. The Court disagrees and has already
explained why.
Judge Gilliam notes that the Plaintiff alleges that although he
made "diligent efforts" to gather all the necessary documents for
his application, he eventually paid the RLEF because he asummed
Wells Fargo was applying its state policy fairly to only charge
borrowers a fee only if they caused the delay. He also alleges that
at the time his loan closed, he never suspected that a
sophisticated financial institution like Wells Fargo would
purposefully misrepresent that he had failed to submit proper
documentation.
Like the prior version of the complaint, Judge Gilliam opines these
allegations similarly do not provide a sufficient basis for the
Court to conclude that the Plaintiff necessarily would have known
that Wells Fargo was at fault for the delayed closing such that
tolling is not available to the Plaintiff as a matter of law.
Viewing the facts pled and making all inferences in the Plaintiff's
favor, Judge Gilliam points out it is plausible that although he
believed that he had submitted all of the proper loan documents, he
nonetheless trusted the Defendants' representation that there was a
problem with his paperwork and that he was at fault.
As before, Judge Gilliam opines that the Plaintiff's minimally
adequate pleading still leaves enough ambiguity in the facts pled
such that he conceivably could be entitled to tolling after
evidentiary development--for example, if he believed he had
submitted the proper paperwork the first time but had no way of
confirming that belief. See Order at 4. Again, the Court denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint as
time-barred.
Finally, the Defendants argue that each of the Plaintiff's claims
fails separately as a matter of law.
The Court finds that it is premature at this stage to determine
whether the Agreement precludes the Plaintiff from bringing a
quasi-contract claim. To be clear, the Court is skeptical of the
merits of the Plaintiff's quasi-contract theory given that his
complaint refers to representations the Defendants allegedly made
in his mortgage loan documents (presumably part of an express,
enforceable contract between the parties) as evidence of the
Defendants' misconduct.
But viewing the Plaintiff's pleading in the light most favorable to
him, Judge Gilliam finds the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that his RLEF payment claim is not based on any valid express
contract, and the Court cannot conclude at this stage that any
quasi-contract claim necessarily fails as a matter of law.
Further, Judge Gilliam says, the question of whether the Agreement
specifically governs the conduct at issue, and the determination of
the parties' understanding of the Agreement's terms, cannot be
resolved without further factual development. As such, the Court
denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
quasi-contract claim.
The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff has not sufficiently
stated a claim for money had and received, and the Court agrees.
Judge Gilliam opines that a different theory of liability might
allow the Plaintiff to recover the profits the Defendants earned on
the money he alleges that they unlawfully acquired from him, but it
is not available as a remedy for a claim for money had or received.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claim for money had and received without leave to
amend.
The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiff's conversion claim
fails because the Plaintiff has not pled a definite sum to which he
and the class would be entitled. In a similar vein, the Defendants
also argue that disgorgement of profits is not an available remedy
for conversion under the circumstances here because the Plaintiff
cannot allege ownership or right to possession of Defendants'
profits on the RLEFs.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff has sufficiently met his burden
at this stage to allege that the sum he seeks is "capable of
identification." Whether he can actually identify the profits the
Defendants earned on the RLEFs is a question better reserved for
summary judgment, Judge Gilliam holds. The Court, thus, denies the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's conversion claim.
Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court dismisses without leave to
amend the Plaintiff's claim for money had and received.
The Court further sets case a case management conference on Jan.
14, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom
Webinar. All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case
management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes
before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test
internet, video, and audio capabilities. The parties are further
directed to file a joint case management statement by Jan. 7,
2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3eyxb4w2 from PacerMonitor.com.
WESTERN EXPRESS: Removes Adorno Suit to C.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of VICTOR ADORNO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTERN
EXPRESS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, filed
a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of San Bernardino (Case No. CIVSB2431883) to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
Jan. 2, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:25-cv-00009. The case is assigned to Judge Sunshine
Suzanne Sykes and referred to Magistrate David T. Bristow.
Western Express, Inc. provides transportation solutions. The
Company offers truckload van, dedicated fleet, flatbed
transportation, expedited truck and rail, and logistics services.
[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. Marca, Esq.
Christopher S. Milligan, Esq.
VARNER & BRANDT LLP
3750 University Ave., Ste. 610
Riverside, CA 92501
Telephone: (951) 274-7777
Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
Email: Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com
Chris.Milligan@varnerbrandt.com
XTO ENERGY: Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed in Salvatora Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER A. SALVATORA, SANDRA
E. SALVATORA, D&M MARBURGER FAMILY ENTERPRISES, L.P., HEASLEY'S
NURSERIES, INC., RODNEY L. LANG, BONITA A. LANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. XTO ENERGY INC., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01097-WSS-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher
Brown entered an order denying XTO's motion to compel arbitration.
XTO argues that the Court confirmed in its opinion on the class
certification motion that the proper time to compel arbitration of
an unnamed class plaintiff's claims is after certification and
after the opt-out process.
In its response to class certification, XTO maintained it "would
not waive its arbitration rights under the leases containing them"
and the arbitration provisions contained in some, but not all, of
the class leases would impact typicality of the class claims.
In addressing that argument, the Court found "[t]o the extent that
XTO intends to raise the arbitration defense post-certification, a
motion may be made to amend the class definition to exclude such
members after the expiration of the opt-out period to enable the
Court to determine the class composition and analyze the specific
arbitration agreements that XTO wishes to enforce."
This finding does not address whether XTO could have raised the
arbitration issue sooner, and the Court declined to make any direct
ruling as to the waiver of the right to arbitrate. Even setting
aside XTO's litigation efforts from the time it first raised
arbitration at the class certification stage in April 2022 until it
filed its formal motion to compel arbitration in March 2024, this
does not undo the years of extensive litigation XTO engaged in
prior to 2022 when it did not mention any intention to arbitrate.
Considering the context and circumstances of this case and XTO's
actions, it has waived its right to compel arbitration
XTO is an American energy company and subsidiary of ExxonMobil
principally operating in North America.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 16, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ttXZS3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
YARDI SYSTEMS: Has Until Jan. 14 to Answer 1st Amended Duffy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MCKENNA DUFFY and MICHAEL BRETT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. YARDI
SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, extends the deadline to
Jan. 14, 2025, for the Defendants to answer the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Complaint.
The matter came before the Court on the Parties' Stipulated Motion
to Extend Time to Answer First Amended Class Action Complaint.
The Court concludes that there is good cause for the extension and,
therefore, grants the motion. The new deadline for the Defendants
to answer the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint is Jan. 14,
2025.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mwdj4twb from PacerMonitor.com.
ZILLOW GROUP: S.D. California Refuses to Dismiss Mata Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in the lawsuit styled GUILLERMO MATA,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01095-DMS-VET
(S.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Guillermo Mata brings this class action on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated. Defendant Zillow Group,
Inc., is a corporation that operates Zillow.com, an online real
estate marketplace with residential properties for sale and lease.
The Plaintiff alleges that listings on the Defendant's website
include video tour walkthroughs and third-party tracking
technologies. According to the Plaintiff, when registered users of
the Defendant's website watch video walkthroughs of available
properties, third-party tracking technologies obtain their viewing
activity and personally identifiable information ("PII") and
transmit that information to third-party tracking vendors without
users' consent.
In his case, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant shared his Zillow
activity with Facebook approximately twenty times. The Plaintiff's
class action asserts two claims: (1) violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act ("VPPA"); and (2) violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), Cal. Penal Code Section 631(a).
The Plaintiff's proposed nationwide class is defined as "[a]ll
persons in the United States with a Zillow account and who
requested or viewed a video walkthrough tour on or through
Zillow.com during the applicable limitations periods." He also
proposes an identical subclass for persons in California. He brings
the first claim on behalf of the proposed nationwide class and the
second claim on behalf of the proposed subclass.
The Defendant contends that it is not a "video tape service
provider" because it uses video walkthroughs merely for
advertising. The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant's business
purpose is showcasing real estate through audiovisual technology.
The Court agrees with the Plaintiff.
The Court finds that the Defendant's "conveyance of video content"
is "significantly tailored" to its business purpose of facilitating
real estate transactions. The Court finds that the Plaintiff
plausibly alleges that, in serving as a marketplace, a key element
of the Defendant's business model is to showcase for-sale
residential properties and properties available for lease on its
website using video content.
Judge Sabraw opines that the Defendant's business would fail if
agents and sellers did not elect to list their properties with the
Defendant. Thus, attracting listings by offering the use of video
walkthrough tours is essential to the Defendant's business model.
Given that the Court must construe the pleadings in the Plaintiff's
favor, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has plausibly
alleged that the Defendant is a "video tape service provider" as
the term is construed in the VPPA. The Court also finds that the
Plaintiff has adequately pled that he is a "subscriber" of the
Defendant's website and, thus, a "consumer" under the VPPA.
The Defendant argues, among other things, that the Plaintiff has
not alleged the disclosure of PII because he has not identified the
specific videos he watched.
The Court disagrees. Judge Sabraw explains that although the
Plaintiff does not list the names of videos that were disclosed to
third parties, he explicitly alleges that the Defendant disclosed
specific video information to third-party vendors. Judge Sabraw
points out that it is unnecessary for him to name the exact videos
allegedly disclosed in his Complaint. The Plaintiff has, therefore,
met his burden, and the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the VPPA claim.
Judge Sabraw further finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff
has plausibly alleged that Meta Platforms, Inc., has intercepted
the content of his communications with the Defendant. The Plaintiff
has, thus, alleged a direct violation of Section 631(a) by Meta.
The Court will also deny the Defendant's request to dismiss the
Plaintiff's tolling claim at this stage.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4prbkhj9 from PacerMonitor.com.
ZYMERGEN INC: Bid for Partial Final Judgment in Wang Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order denying motion for partial
final judgment in the lawsuit styled BIAO WANG, et al., Plaintiffs
v. ZYMERGEN INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-06028-PCP
(N.D. Cal.).
In this securities fraud class action, lead plaintiff Biao Wang
filed a second amended complaint on March 4, 2024, asserting that
Defendants DCVC Management Co, LLC, Data Collective II, L.P., and
DCVC Opportunity Fund, L.P. (collectively DCVC) were secondarily
liable for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint alleged that DCVC's control of Matthew Ocko (an owner
of DCVC and a member of Zymergen's board) and its control of
Zymergen both subjected it to liability under Section 15.
The complaint also alleged that DCVC was liable for Mr. Ocko's
alleged violation of Section 11 under a theory of respondeat
superior. The Court dismissed the Section 15 claim premised on
DCVC's control of Mr. Ocko and dismissed the Section 11 claim. The
Court did not dismiss the Section 15 claim alleging liability based
on DCVC's control of Zymergen.
DCVC now moves for partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) on the
Section 15 and 11 claims that were premised on DCVC's relationship
with Mr. Ocko.
The Court concludes that it would be improper to enter final
judgment as to any claim against DCVC.
As to the Section 15 claim, Mr. Wang relied upon two theories in
alleging DCVC's secondary liability, contending that DCVC was
secondarily liable due to its control of either Zymergen or Mr.
Ocko. The Court dismissed the claim to the extent it was premised
on Mr. Ocko but allowed it to the extent it was premised on control
of Zymergen. Mr. Wang's Section 15 claim against DCVC, therefore,
remains part of the case, albeit with a narrowed focus.
Because Mr. Wang's two theories of liability are part of a single
claim arising under Section 15 that the parties continue to
actively litigate, the Court's dismissal of one theory of liability
was not a judgment that ends the litigation on the merits and
leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment, Judge
Pitts explains. Final judgment as to Mr. Wang's Section 15 claim
against DCVC is, therefore, inappropriate.
By contrast, the Court has dismissed all Section 11 claims against
DCVC and there remains no live allegation that DCVC is liable for
any Section 11 violation. As such, Judge Pitts says there will be
no further discovery, motions practice, or merits questions
involving DCVC's liability under Section 11. The Court's order
dismissing these claims is, therefore, an ultimate disposition as
to which there remains nothing for the Court to do but execute the
judgment.
Final judgment, however, is inappropriate because resolving the
Section 11 claims would not "streamline the ensuing litigation,"
Judge Pitts opines, citing Jewel v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 810 F.3d
622, 628 (9th Cir. 2015).
First, Judge Pitts explains, DCVC remains a defendant with respect
to Mr. Wang's Section 15 claim. If Mr. Wang were to appeal this
Court's dismissal of the Section 11 claim against DCVC--as he would
be entitled to do upon entry of partial final judgment--the parties
would litigate this matter simultaneously in both the trial and
appellate courts.
Second, Mr. Wang's Section 11 claims against Mr. Ocko remain in the
case. A ruling in Mr. Ocko's favor on the Section 11 claims would
render moot any appeal of the Section 11 claim against DCVC. In
this respect, the claim against this Court dismissed is not
"substantially different" from the Section 11 claims that remain
pending against Mr. Ocko. Final judgment as to the Section 11 claim
against DCVC is, therefore, also inappropriate.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated is available at
https://tinyurl.com/7tps97xs from PacerMonitor.com.
[*] Duane Morris LLP Released Class Action Analysis for 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris LLP has released its Class Action Review -- 2025, an
analysis of more than 1,441 decisions in the past year, examining
all categories of class action litigation. This exclusive,
one-of-a-kind publication provides a comprehensive analysis of
class action litigation trends and significant rulings and
settlements from 2024 that will enable readers to make informed
decisions when dealing with complex litigation risks in 2025.
"Duane Morris offers a powerful and multifaceted capability for
businesses to successfully plan and navigate in the class action
defense environment, and Jerry Maatman, Jen Riley and their
talented team can handle any situation," said Duane Morris Chairman
and CEO Matthew A. Taylor. "Without a doubt, the American workplace
continues to evolve, creating both substantial risks and plentiful
business opportunities. Our publication analyzes class action
trends, decisions and settlements in all areas impacting corporate
America and provides timely insights as to what companies and
corporate counsel can expect in the year ahead."
"With a robust pro-plaintiff litigation environment, it is clear
that class action litigation represents an increased financial risk
for companies," said Duane Morris partner Gerald L. Maatman Jr.,
co-author of the review and chair of the firm's class action
defense practice team. "Plus, we are seeing the class action
landscape as increasingly plaintiff-friendly in key areas,
including data privacy and data breaches, and diversity and ESG
initiatives."
"Along with our outlook for a decreased role for government
enforcement, the increasingly active and influential pace of
Supreme Court decisions will continue to loom over the class action
landscape," added Duane Morris partner Jennifer A. Riley, co-author
of the review and vice chair of the firm's class action defense
practice team. "We hope that this valuable resource will once again
assist organizations in taking critical steps to manage their
risks."
Since 2003, Maatman has been directing a yearly review of the class
action landscape. A Chambers-recognized defense litigator, Maatman
has defended some of the largest workplace class actions ever filed
in the United States.
Among the 10 overarching trends in the class action area in 2024,
the Duane Morris Class Action Review highlights four key takeaways
for companies in 2025, including:
1. Settlement Numbers Break $40 Billion for the Third Year in a
Row
In 2024, settlement numbers broke the $40 billion mark for the
third year in a row. The cumulative value of the highest 10
settlements in each substantive area of class action litigation
totaled $42 billion. That number is the third highest value we have
tallied in the last two decades, next only to the numbers we saw in
2023 and 2022, where settlements totaled $51.4 billion and $66
billion, respectively. Combined, the past three years reflect use
of the class action litigation process to redistribute wealth at an
unprecedented level. These numbers explain why we are continuing to
see growth in the class action space, where the plaintiffs' class
action bar is clamoring to identify the next "tort of the day" to
cash in on this veritable lottery.
2. PFAS and Reverse Discrimination Claims Emerge as a Class Action
Threat
PFAS class actions inspired some of the most attention-grabbing
headlines this past year across the legal landscape. PFAS, or per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of man-made chemicals
that are resistant to oil, water and heat. They are used in many
consumer and industrial products and are commonly called "forever
chemicals" because of their persistence, meaning they do not break
down easily in the environment. PFAS generated the largest class
action settlement in 2024, which came in at more than twice the
next highest settlement, also involving PFAS, and generated an
attorneys' fee award of nearly $1 billion. These numbers are going
to inspire a continued wave of PFAS class actions, as the
plaintiffs' class action bar targets more companies with claims
that their products or packaging contained PFAS, and those
companies, in turn, search for claims against their material
suppliers.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair
Admission stimulated a flood of claims targeting diversity, equity
and inclusion programs over the past year. Headlines were replete
with cases of employees and applicants accusing employers of
prioritizing diversity over merit and improperly using protected
characteristics to guide decision-making. A rare class action trial
in California this past year led a jury to find a technology firm
liable for engaging in a pattern or practice of intentional
discrimination against Caucasian and non-Indian employees in its
termination and deployment decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court is
poised to resolve a federal circuit split over whether members of a
majority group alleging "reverse discrimination" must meet a higher
burden of proof, potentially opening the courthouse to more such
claims.
3. Data Breach and Privacy Class Actions Continue to Be a Focus
Data breach litigation remained expansive in 2024 as plaintiffs
filed more data breach class actions than in any other year,
doubling the number filed in 2022. Despite the significant increase
in filings, courts issued few (only five) class certification
decisions in 2024, suggesting that many motions are in the pipeline
or that, observing the difficulty that plaintiffs have faced in
certifying such cases over the past two years, plaintiffs are
electing to monetize their data breach claims prior to reaching
that crucial juncture. So long as defendants continue to play ball
on the settlement front, we are likely to see settlement payouts
continue to lure plaintiffs to this space and fuel those filing
numbers.
As technology continues to infiltrate our everyday lives, it
continues to provide the grist for potential class-wide claims. On
August 2, 2024, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed a long-awaited
amendment to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The
amendment eliminated per-scan damages, effectively doing away with
the potentially crushing penalties allowed under a pre-amendment
version of the law that inspired thousands of class action lawsuits
over the past seven years. While potential per-person damages
remain significant, the growth in such claims has remained
essentially flat as plaintiffs shifted their privacy claims over
the past year away from biometrics and toward theories inspired by
internet use. Although website activity tracking tools are nothing
new, and appear on most popular websites, this past year they
continued to fuel a wave of lawsuits alleging that use of such
tools caused companies in various industries to share users'
private information. While some of these cases and claims met an
early dismissal, others inspired sizable settlements, signaling
continued investment in this area by the plaintiffs' bar.
4. California Remains Ground Zero
PAGA inspired more representative lawsuits than any other statute
this past year. According to the California Department of
Industrial Relations, plaintiffs filed more than 9,464 PAGA notices
in 2024, a nearly 22% increase over 2023, and a whopping 85,936%
increase over the 11 PAGA notices filed in 2006. The so-called PAGA
reform legislation passed in 2024 seemingly did little to nothing
to curb interest in these cases, which continue to present one of
the most viable workarounds to workplace arbitration agreements.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court held merely two years ago in Viking
River v. Moriana that PAGA claims have both individual and
representative components, the former of which is subject to
arbitration, some California courts already have started
disregarding that decision and finding no front-end hurdle to
plaintiffs' ability to jump to an immediate representative
proceeding in court.
At more than 650 pages, the Duane Morris Class Action Review --
2025 is available in hard copy book format and as a fully
searchable e-book.
About Duane Morris
Duane Morris LLP provides innovative solutions to today's
multifaceted legal and business challenges through the collegial
and collaborative culture of its more than 900 attorneys in offices
across the United States and internationally. The firm represents a
broad array of clients, spanning all major practices and
industries. Duane Morris has been recognized by BTI Consulting as
both a client service leader and a highly recommended law firm.
[GN]
*********
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 ***