Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Ralphs Grocery Co.
-
Notice | Filed: May 09, 2024 | Entered: May 09, 2024 BKK Working Group v. 1700 Santa Fe Ltd et al
Environmental Matters | California Central
Notice (Other)
Notice OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS filed by Plaintiff BKK Working Group. (Fellers, Denise)
-
Filed: May 08, 2024 | Entered: May 08, 2024 Lamb v. Ralphs Grocery Company d/b/a Food 4 Less et al
110(Contract: Insurance) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Manish S. Shah: By 5/30/24, the parties shall file a joint initial status report. A template for the Initial Status Report, setting forth the information required, may be found at http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/Judges.aspx by clicking on Judge Shah's name and then again on the link entitled 'Initial Status Conferences.' If defendants have not entered appearances or been served, plaintiff must file a status report advising the court of the status of service of process or any communication with defendants. Notices Mailed. (psm, ) (Entered: 05/08/2024)
-
Filed: May 07, 2024 | Entered: May 07, 2024 Garmon et al v. Ralphs Grocery Company, d/b/a Food 4 Less Midwest et al
360(P.I.: Other) | Illinois Northern
Minute
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Steven C. Seeger: Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dckt. No. 9 ) is hereby denied. In a nutshell, Defendants asked this Court to dismiss the case given that Plaintiffs are putative members of a not-yet-certified class in another case in this district. See Defs.' Mem., at 2 (Dckt. No. 10 ). Both cases involve the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. In the case at hand, Plaintiffs sued Ralphs Grocery Company, which does business as Food 4 Less Midwest and Kroger. See Cplt., at ¶¶ 2-3 (Dckt. No. 1 ). Food 4 Less is a grocery store chain in Kroger's business family. Id. at ¶ 10. Plaintiffs worked at Food 4 Less stores. Id. at ¶ 13. They had to scan their fingerprint to clock in and out of work. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants' practices violated Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act. Id. at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs' complaint has a lot in common with another lawsuit in this district. See Johnson v. Kroger, No. 22-cv-2409 (N.D. Ill). Johnson is against the same Defendants. It also alleges that Defendants' time-keeping systems violated BIPA. But there is one big difference. Johnson is a proposed class action. According to Defendants, the case at hand needlessly duplicates Johnson. Defendants say that the ten Plaintiffs in this case are subsumed in Johnson's putative class definition. See Defs.' Mem., at 2 (Dckt. No. 10). True, a "district court has broad discretion to dismiss a complaint for reasons of wise judicial administration whenever it is duplicative of a parallel action already pending in another federal court." See McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 694 F.3d 873, 888 (7th Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). "A suit is duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between the two actions." Id. (cleaned up). Even so, as things stand, the Plaintiffs in the case at hand are not parties in the Johnson case. They're putative members of a not-yet-certified class, so they're potential parties, at best. In Johnson, Judge Alonso has only preliminarily approved a proposed settlement class. See Johnson v. Kroger, No. 22-cv-2409 (N.D. Ill.) (Dckt. No. 66). So, these Plaintiffs are not parties in Johnson. See Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 313 (2011) (rejecting "the novel and surely erroneous argument that a nonnamed class member is a party to the class-action litigation before the class is certified") (citation omitted); see also 4 Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions § 13:18 (6th ed. 2023) ("[T]he court is not certifying the class at the preliminary approval stage; it is only making a preliminary determination that it will likely be able to certify the class at the final approval stage."). True, Johnson looks like it is hurdling towards a final class approval and settlement. Judge Alonso is holding a settlement approval hearing at the end of May. See Johnson v. Kroger, No. 22-cv-2409 (N.D. Ill.) (Dckt. No. 66). But the die is not yet cast. If Judge Alonso certifies a settlement class, then the Plaintiffs in the case at hand could opt out of that case, and pursue a case of their own (meaning the case at hand). If Judge Alonso does not certify a settlement class, and if Judge Alonso rejects class certification on the merits, then the Plaintiffs in the case at hand could file their own lawsuit. In other words, Plaintiffs don't have to litigate their claims in a class if they don't want to litigate their claims in a class. And by the look of things, Plaintiffs don't want any part of the class action. From day one, Plaintiffs have consistently represented that they have zero intention of participating in the Johnson litigation. In their complaint, Plaintiffs represented that if "the Johnson Class Action achieves certification and settles, any Plaintiff here that is a putative member of the Johnson Class Action will timely and properly request to be excluded." See Cplt., at 3 n.5 (Dckt. No. 1). Plaintiffs told the same story in their response to Defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs declared that they "hereby stipulate that they will not participate in Johnson in the event that a settlement is approved and will immediately opt-out, once opt-out information is provided." See Pls.' Resp., at 8 (Dckt. No. 13 ). As Judge Ellis held in a related situation, this Court "credits ... (truncated)
Stay ahead of the curve
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
- Archive of over 450,000 articles
- Database of over 2.1 million cases
- 62,000+ organization-specific pages.
- Daily and real-time news and case alerts on organizations, industries, and customized search queries.
- Significant legal events involving law firms, companies, industries, and government agencies.
- Learn more
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login